

QUERIES 

1/ AND 
5/ ANSWERS 

LIPSCOMB "»SEWEU. 




M.C.KURFEES 




Class 

Book 

Copyright^ . 



C0FXRIGHT DEPOSIT. 




DAVID LIPSCOMB. 



-^ 05^ 




E. G. SEWELL. 



QUERIES AND ANSWERS 

BY 

LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL 



BEING 



A Compilation of Queries with Answers by 

D. Lipscomb and E. G. Sewell, covering 

a period of forty years of their joint 

editorial labors on the 

Gospel Advocate 



EDITED BY 

M. C. KURFEES 

Editor of the Gospel Advocate; Author of " Walking by Faith, 
" Instrumental Music in Christian Worship," etc. 



Nashville, Tenn. 

McQUIDDY PRINTING COMPANY 

1921 



... 



Copyright, 1921, by 

McQUIDDY PRINTINCx COMPANY, 

Nashville, Term. 



FEB 26 1921 
CU608503 



'VYfc 



PREFACE. 



The editor of this work submits a word of explanation 
touching its general plan and purpose. It consists of 
queries propounded by numerous persons at different times 
on a multiplicity and variety of subjects, with answers by 
Elder David Lipscomb and Elder E. G. Sewell, and cover- 
ing a period of forty years of their joint editorial labors 
on the Gospel Advocate. If there be merit in a great va- 
riety of themes, this work has it in large measure, there 
being more than six hundred subjects and phases of sub- 
jects treated in its pages, making the work a veritable store- 
house of information imparted by two men not only well 
informed in the Bible, but thoroughly conscientious in their 
uniform effort to teach it unmixed with the devices of hu- 
man wisdom. 

The collation, selection, and arrangement of the material 
was a Herculean task, involving much painstaking and te- 
dious labor. It was the original plan of the editor to clas- 
sify and arrange the material in the form of chapters, with 
suitable headings, but the great number and variety of 
themes discussed made this plan less desirable; and hence 
it was decided to place over each query a suitable heading 
indicating the subject of the query and answer, and then to 
arrange the subject-matter of the whole book in the form 
of an encyclopedia, the subjects treated being arranged in 
alphabetical order. Without a topical index, this will en- 
able the reader to find without difficulty any subject treated 
in the book. 

To save space, both the names signed to queries and some- 
times accompanying remarks by the querists, which are not 
essential to the query, are eliminated. But the signatures 
of D. L. and E. G. S., wherever found appended to the an- 
swers, are allowed to remain, so that, in all such cases, the 
reader can know which of the two editors is the author of 
the answer in a given case. Sometimes the name of neither 
was appended to the answer; and in such cases, while the 
reader can know that the answer is by either Lipscomb or 
Sewell, he probably will not know which, although persons 
familiar with the different styles of the two men will read- 
ily recognize which author they are reading. 

At some points the careful reader will observe slight rep- 
etition, but it is not of a nature to mar the work. On the 
contrary, the material being selected from that produced 
by the joint labors of the two men, it was found, in some 



4 PREFACE. 

instances, that both of them at different times had an- 
swered the same question ; and, to give the reader the ben- 
efit of the wisdom of both, the answer of each is allowed to 
appear, the one usually following immediately after the 
other. The variety of treatment thus gained is ample com- 
pensation for slight repetition. The reader, in such cases, 
not only has the advantage of hearing both men on the same 
subject, but the one often supplements the other. In some 
instances the same editor is allowed to appear twice on the 
same subject, because the same query was propounded at 
different times, and the answer at one time supplements 
that at another. 

The very excellent work entitled "Queries and Answers" 
and edited by Brother J. W. Shepherd consists of selections 
from David Lipscomb alone. The editor of that volume 
not only maintained in its preparation his reputation for 
thorough and accurate work, but the material he collected 
is of a high order, making, in the judgment of the present 
editor, one of the most valuable books published in recent 
years. But it did not exhaust the material left by Brother 
Lipscomb ; and the additional material from him given in 
this volume, together with that from Brother Sewell, not 
only makes another valuable book, but the present editor 
entertains the hope that the two works may be used as com- 
panion volumes, and that they may find a welcome place in 
many libraries. 

In a few instances, in order to make the discussion com- 
plete at a given point, the same item, or substantially the 
same, will be found in both volumes; but here, again, the 
repetition is of a nature not to harm, but to help in the 
effort to elicit truth, which, in all their labors as teachers of 
the Bible, was the uniform object of these two eminent 
servants of God. Side by side they lived, and loved, and 
labored together. Truly a noble team they were, and right 
well did they pull together. 

Thus, in the present volume, the reader has the rare 
privilege of journeying with these two godly men and sit- 
ting as a student at their feet for forty years' of the most 
active period of their lives. They were noble yokefellows 
in a noble cause, and I doubt if two men ever worked to- 
gether more successfully or more harmoniously for so long 
a time. Their joint labors are a monument of fidelity to 
God and to his church. M. C. Kurfees. 

Louisville, Ky., September 1, 1920. 



QUERIES AND ANSWERS 

BY 

LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL 



ABEL, WHY ACCEPTED, AND NOT CAIN. 

Please explain why Abel's offering was accepted and Cain's rejected. 

In general terms, it was because Abel's offering pleased 
the Lord and Cain's did not. Abel's pleased him because it 
was according to his will and Cain's was not. Did they 
know this will — that is, had God given commandment con- 
cerning these offerings ? It is nowhere said he had ; yet it 
is hardly reasonable that God placed a penalty on a course 
without giving man warning of the evil he would incur. 
We think it not probable that man would have brought an 
offering without a command from God. If he commanded 
the offering, he doubtless gave commands as to the kind of 
offering that would please him. The reason the lamb was 
pleasing to God was because without the shedding of blood 
there was no remission. 

ABRAHAM, THE PROMISE TO. 

Please give us an article in the Gospel Advocate on the promises 
made to Abraham — whether they have been fulfilled or not; or do we, 
as Christians, look for those promises yet to be fulfilled? In Gen. 13 : 14, 
15, God said to Abraham: "Look from the place where thou art north- 
ward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: for all the land 
which thou seest, to thee will I give it." Then in Acts 7 : 5 it is said 
that he did not inherit it. Why I want your views on this is that the 
Adventists are creating great excitement in this country among the 
brethren. 

When people will not know and practice the word of God, 
they will be carried off by some delusion or other. God 
will send a delusion upon those who stubbornly reject his 
word. The people of this country and age do not know 
what the Bible teaches ; hence they cannot believe or prac- 
tice it. We think likely Adventism is as harmless a delu- 
sion of a religious character as can afflict them. 

The promise to Abraham was: "In blessing I will bless 
thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars 
of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore ; 
and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in 



6 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; be- 
cause thou hast obeyed my voice." It is an indefinite ques- 
tion to ask if that promise has been fulfilled. There are so 
many items in the blessing that were not all to be accom- 
plished at one time that the same answer will not answer 
for all. 

The first promise, "I will bless thee," certainly was ful- 
filled; the second, "In multiplying I will multiply thy seed 
as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon 
the seashore," was fulfilled. Their numbers increased be- 
yond computation almost. They were given the mastery 
over their enemies, or possessed the gates of their enemies, 
until by disobedience they forfeited this power. Through 
Abraham the promised seed has come — Christ Jesus, our 
Lord. In him the blessing for all nations is provided. All 
nations who have received him have received the promised 
blessing, but the enjoyment of it depends upon our accept- 
ing that blessing and appropriating it through compliance 
with the conditions connected with the giving of it. The 
condition of enjoying the blessing through Christ is trust in 
him that leads to a full acceptance of Christ as the Ruler 
and Lord of all. No nation, as a whole, has accepted him 
thus. Some have wholly rejected him. They wholly fail 
of the blessing through this rejection. Only individuals of 
other nations and families accept him. To the extent that 
they receive and obey him, to that extent they have received 
the blessing. The blessings through Abraham have been 
provided and given to the world. The enjoyment of those 
blessings is only partial. The Jews have forfeited the bless- 
ings they once enjoyed. The Gentiles have only partially 
accepted the blessings, so to a very limited extent enjoy 
them. The blessings through Abraham have all been pro- 
vided by God and placed in reach of man. Man enjoys 
them just to the extent that he receives and obeys Christ. 

D. L. 

ABRAHAM, THE TWO SONS OF. 

Brother Sewell: Please write up the two sons of Abraham — one by 
a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman. 

The passage is this : "Tell me, ye that desire to be under 
the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that 
Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by 
a freewoman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born 
after the flesh ; but he of the freewoman was by promise. 
Which things are an allegory: for these are the two cove- 
nants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to 
bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 7 

bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above 
is free, which is the mother of us all." (Gal. 4: 21-26.) 
This is the history of the wife of Abraham — Sarah, or "Sa- 
rai" until the Lord ordered it changed to "Sarah." Sarah 
had no child till she was quite old, far beyond the natural 
age of becoming a mother. When she had apparently de- 
spaired of ever being a mother, she gave her maid to Abra- 
ham to wife, and she became the mother of Ishmael. It was 
foretold by an angel to his mother before he was born that 
he would be a wild man, that his hand would be against 
every man and every man's hand would be against him. 
This prediction turned out to be literally true after he grew 
to manhood. He and his mother remained in the house of 
Abraham till Isaac was born and the time for his weaning 
had come. They had some sort of feast on that occasion, 
and Sarah saw Ishmael mocking at her son Isaac ; and she 
at once decreed that he and his mother must leave at once, 
and so they did. From this time we have but few items of 
history of Ishmael. He married an Egyptian woman, had 
twelve sons, and the family drifted into Arabia and led a 
roving, wild sort of life. The Ishmaelites bob up occasion- 
ally in Bible history for a long time, but they never ac- 
complish much in the world's history. But this family, 
Hagar and her offspring, became a sort of type — Hagar, a 
type of the Jewish covenant, the law of Moses ; and her pos- 
terity, a sort of type of the Jewish people under that cove- 
nant. This is what Paul means in the passage as part of his 
allegory : That Hagar represents the covenant that was es- 
tablished at Mount Sinai, "which gendereth to bondage, 
. . . and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in 
bondage with her children." Her children represent in fig- 
ure the Jewish people, which were under the law of Moses, 
which Paul calls a "yoke of bondage," and the Jewish peo- 
ple are trying to hold on to that same yoke of bondage to 
this day. This is the typical meaning of the bondmaid and 
her son. But there is much greater importance attached 
to the other side of the allegory. Sarah lived on till she 
was quite old, when, in fulfillment of the promise of God 
through an angel, she bore a son in her old age. This is 
what is meant by Isaac's being a child of promise, while 
Ishmael was born after the flesh — simply a natural, ordi- 
nary birth. Sarah was a type, or representative, of the 
new covenant of Christianity, and her posterity through 
Isaac were typical of Christians, Abraham's spiritual pos- 
terity. So Sarah represents the church of God, the "Jeru- 
salem which is above," which "is free," and "which is the 
mother of us all." This is a beautiful figure, and in reality 



8 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

represents in figure most of the history of the whole Bible 
and of the whole world to the end of time, when run out to 
its full meaning ; for the spiritual seed of Abraham includes 
all Christians, both Jewish and Gentile, till the end of time. 
Paul used this figure in an effort to impress the Jewish 
Christians of Galatia with the folly and awful danger of 
turning back to the law of Moses, which had been set aside 
and which could save no one. He showed that if they un- 
dertook to keep the law they would lose all interest, all the 
benefits that belong to the new and everlasting covenant 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. 

ACCURSED FROM CHRIST, PAUL WISHES HIMSELF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Setvell: As I want all the information I 
can get on the Bible, please explain the following passage of scrip- 
ture: "For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for 
my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh." (Rom. 9: 3.) 

As an exposition of this passage, we will insert the first 
three verses of this chapter as rendered in "The Living Or- 
acles," which we regard as the plainest rendering we have 
ever met with : "I speak the truth in Christ, I do not speak 
falsely, my conscience bearing me witness, in the Holy 
Spirit, that I have great grief, and unceasing anguish in my 
heart, for my brethren ; my kinsmen, according to the flesh ; 
(for I also was, myself, wishing to be accursed from 
Christ)." Paul had reference to his past course of life, 
before he became a Christian, while he was persecuting the 
church. 

ADAM, CONDITION OF, BEFORE THE FALL. 

Please give in the Gospel Advocate your understanding of the con- 
dition of Adam before his fall. In other words, was he immortal be- 
fore he violated his Maker? Did he lose both temporal and spiritual 
life? If so, did not the Savior die, not only a temporal, but a spirit- 
ual, death, to consummate the at-one-ment for the human family? 
I have my ideas of this question, resulting from a careful study of 
the Bible. A brother and myself, differing to some extent about it, 
agreed to refer to you for the sum of your investigations, thinking 
you might assist us and perhaps others occupying similar positions. 
My position is, in short, that he was subject to mortality even in 
Eden; but the fruit of the tree of life could, and did, perpetuate his 
life, counteracting his tendency to mortality. What say you? 

These questions are so near the border line of specula- 
tions that have a tendency to draw men's minds from the 
more practical requirements of religion that we answer 
them cautiously. Some things, we think, are revealed 
about the death of Adam. These we try to answer. The 
death that Adam died clearly was that he became mortal. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 9 

Mortality is death. Death is suffering, decay, corruption. 
What we call "death" is the final result of a state of death 
that we are undergoing here. The biblical use of the term 
immortality is not eternal existence merely, but the oppo- 
site of mortality — freedom from suffering, decay, corrup- 
tion. This corruptible must put on incorruption ; this 
mortal, immortality; so death (our present state) will be 
swallowed up in victory. Man was without corruption, or 
mortality, before he sinned. Whether he was kept so by 
eating the fruit of the tree of life or whether it was inher- 
ent in him, we have no means of determining. The cutting 
off from the tree of life corresponded in time with his be- 
coming mortal, or entering into the state of death. It is 
probably a legitimate inference that the continuance to par- 
take of the tree of life would have perpetuated existence. 
Man became physically a dying being. He sinned. To sin 
is to separate from God, is to unite with the devil. This is 
to breathe the atmosphere of death, is to drink in the life of 
the evil one. His life becomes our life. The life of the evil 
one is a living death. Deliverance from the service of the 
evil one is life, is union with God. Whether it required the 
spiritual death of Christ or how far he suffered or died 
spiritualty or in his divine nature, we have no means of 
determining; so anything we might say would be unprofit- 
able speculation in things not revealed. We only know he 
did not die as a spiritual being, in the sense of sinning 
against God, and being united to the evil one. How a being 
can spiritually die without separation from God and union 
with the evil one, we know not. Christ's death opened the 
way for our escape from union with the evil one for a re- 
union with God. The devil is the ruler of this world. Its 
atmosphere is impregnated with a spirit of rebellion against 
God. We imbibe the spirit of rebellion. Christ died to de- 
liver men from this evil influence. He calls him into his 
church, in which a different atmosphere prevails, so man 
may breathe a different spirit. Finally this church will re- 
possess this world. The atmosphere will be purged of 
the spirit of sin, with which it is surcharged, and men will 
cease to breathe the rebellious spirit and will be less in love 
with sin. 

ADDED, WHAT "THINGS" SHALL BE? 

Brother Lipscomb: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his 
righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." (Matt. 
6: 33.) What are the things to be added? If earthly good, will it 
be added without effort on our part to gain the good? 

Earthly goods and comforts are embraced in the promise. 
In order to appropriate this promise, men are to seek, first, 



10 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the kingdom of God — seek his kingdom that we may enter 
into it; second, they are to seek the righteousness of God. 
God's righteousness embraces all the conditions and provi- 
sions God has ordained to make men righteous. God has 
provided a man should live industriously, maintain good 
works for necessary purposes, live plainly and economically. 
"Let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary 
uses, that they be not unfruitful. " (Tit. 3: 14.) Chris- 
tians are required to live industriously, follow good callings, 
be economical and saving in the use of what they possess, 
and give freely to those in need. To seek the righteousness 
of God is to live as God directs. Living thus, a man will 
abound in earthly as well as in spiritual blessings. It is to 
reach and enjoy the temporal blessings through spiritual 
ones. It is God blessing man through directing him in the 
channels in which God's blessings flow, that man may 
gather them as he goes. In the ordinary affairs of life, in 
nonmiraculous ages, God's blessings are bestowed through 
compliance with the laws of God. The blessings come 
through working in harmony with God's law ; so such serv- 
ices in their operations bestow the blessings on man. Man 
may bless himself by complying with God's laws. 

ADDING TO AND TAKING FROM THE BIBLE. 

In verse 18 of the last chapter of Revelation, was the adding to 
and taking away from "this book" the book of Revelation or the entire 
word of God? 

It is barely possible that the writer intended it to apply 
specifically to the book of Revelation ; but it is a principle 
that applies to all the inspired writings, and I believe it was 
written in these last verses of the book that naturally closes 
the revelation of God, that as a two-edged sword it might 
guard from change or modification the whole revealed will 
of God. Moses says: "Ye shall not add unto the word 
which I command you, neither shall ye diminish aught from 
it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your 
God which I command you." (Deut. 4: 2.) It is repeated 
in Deut. 12: 32; Josh. 1: 7. Prov. 30: 5, 6 expresses it 
thus : "Every word of God is pure : he is a shield unto them 
that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, 
lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." It is re- 
peated a hundred times in one form or another in the Old 
Testament. If the Old Testament law — temporal in its 
rule, sealed by the blood of animals — was thus sacred and 
guarded from sacrilegious touch by the hand of man, how 
much more sacred the perfect and everlasting law of God, 
given through the word that was with God and sealed by 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 11 

the blood of his only begotten Son ! The mission of Jesus, 
as announced by John, was to thoroughly purge his floor, 
separate what had been added by human tradition and burn 
it as chaff, so he could fulfill only the perfect will of God. 
He condemned all the traditions of the elders and all human 
traditions in religion, showing that even washing the hands 
as religious service when not commanded by God was sin. 
(Matt. 15.) 

To displace God's order under the Jewish dispensation 
with an order of men was to despise the law of Moses ; to 
turn from the law sealed by the blood of Christ, to take 
from it or add to it, is to trample underfoot the blood of 
the Son of God and do despite to the Spirit of grace. To 
change the word of God by adding to or taking from it as 
God has given it is to assume the prerogative of God and 
claim to be wiser than he and to be possessed of more than 
his authority. I believe God intended that warning to ap- 
ply to the whole of his written will ; and if that specific com- 
mand did not, the same principle and warning is stamped 
upon almost every page of revelation. 

ADVENTISTS AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL. 

Brother Sewell: As one of our sisters has turned Adventist and 
has some of the members bothered, I would like a full explanation of 
the following passages of scripture: Ex. 31: 16, 17; Matt. 5: 19; 
Rom. 14 : 5, 6. Who are meant by the "children of Israel" in the pas- 
sage first named? What "commandments" is Jesus speaking of in 
the second passage? 

The children of Israel were the Jewish people, the poster- 
ity of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob. In this particu- 
lar passage it meant the children of Israel that had come 
out of Egypt under Moses as their leader. The Sabbath 
day, as one of the Ten Commandments, had but recently 
been given to the Jewish people. The verses you mention 
show that the Sabbath day was given to the Jews only. The 
Gentile world never had any share in it. In the first of 
Genesis, where the seventh day is first mentioned, it says 
that God rested that day. He had finished the work of cre- 
ation in six days and rested on the seventh. But he did 
not require men to rest on that day then. To show that 
the Sabbath belonged to the Jews only, the passage you 
name uses this language: "Wherefore the children of Israel 
shall keep the Sabbath, to observe the Sabbath throughout 
their generations, for a perpetual covenant. It is a sign 
between me and the children of Israel forever." These 
verses show beyond a peradventure that the Sabbath day 
was given to the Jews, and to them only ; and when it says 
it would be a sign between Jehovah and the children of Is- 



12 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

rael forever, the "forever" means to the end of the Jewish 
covenant, the law of Moses, which really did end. Hence, 
when Jesus died on the cross, the law of Moses, the Jewish 
covenant, was taken out of the way, and with it the Sab- 
bath day. This is shown in the following passage: "Blot- 
ting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, 
which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing 
it to his cross." (Col. 2: 14.) The word handwriting es- 
pecially takes in the Ten Commandments, as they were the 
handwriting of God, and the Sabbath day was the fourth 
command of the ten. Therefore the Sabbath day was, 
without any doubt, done away. In verse 16 of the same 
chapter Paul says: "Let no man therefore judge you in 
meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new 
moon, or of the Sabbath days." This shows that the whole 
affair of the law was done away, Sabbath day and all. 
Hence the seventh-day claim is without foundation. The 
seventh-day Sabbath never did belong to the Gentiles, and 
it was taken from the Jews when Jesus died ; and so it is 
out of date entirely now, as is the whole of the law of Moses. 
Matt. 5 : 19 simply has reference to the commands of the 
law of Moses, which law was still in force when Christ used 
that language; but when he died on the cross, some three 
years later, the law was taken away. The other passage 
(Rom. 14: 5, 6) has reference either to the Jewish Chris- 
tians, who wanted to keep up the holy days of the law, such 
as the Sabbath day, or it refers to some sort of superstition 
among Gentile Christians there, either one of which would 
cause confusion and division without profit, and they better 
not have divisions over the opinions of men. All ideas of 
holy days, then, except the first day of the week, were 
merely the opinions of men not involving any divine author- 
ity. There is not a particle of divine authority to keep the 
seventh-day Sabbath since the abolition of the old covenant 
and the establishment of the new. 

AGENT, HOW IS MAN A FREE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: We are challenged to take in de- 
bate the affirmative of the following question: "Resolved, That man 
is a free agent." Please write us if we have the right side of the 
question; and, if so, will you be so kind as to give us your arguments 
on that side, and oblige? 

In the ordinary acceptation of the expression, it is true, 
though not a Bible sentence. Men usually mean by this 
expression that man, as he is, can accept the gospel and be 
saved at any time that he will, or he can reject it and die. 
The language of the Bible is: "Whosoever will, let him take 
the water of life freely." "Enter ye in at the strait gate." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 13 

"Ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." These 
passages show that man can serve God and live, or refuse 
and be lost ; and if that is what is meant by the expression 
that "man is a free agent," then it is true. But in discuss- 
ing religious subjects we think it would be best to use Bible 
language in stating what we affirm, and in this way all 
might soon be one. E. G. S. 

"ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain in the Gospel Ad- 
vocate 1 Cor. 9: 22. What is meant by the expression: "I am made 
all things to all men, that I might by all means save some?" 

Paul in this passage was not speaking of anything that 
involved the law of God under Christianity. He only had 
reference to outside matters that were only matters of in- 
difference. Paul never willingly disobeyed any requirement 
of God under Christianity to please any one. But in the 
customs of the people that involved no principle of Chris- 
tianity, he submitted. When among the Jews, he acted as 
the Jews in all their customs that did not compromise any 
law of Christ; and the same also among the Gentiles, or 
heathen. In matters of indifference, in which if people par- 
take they are nothing worse and from which if they refrain 
they are nothing better, Christians can be perfectly indif- 
ferent. If a Christian is where the custom is to invariably 
wash the hands before eating, he can submit to that ; and so 
of any other custom of like character. But if a Christian 
is called upon to turn away from the laws of Christ or do 
anything that is contrary to them, he cannot yield, even if a 
refusal should imperil his life. E. G. S. 

ALTAR, PLACE OF THE GOLDEN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Where was the God-appointed place for the 
golden altar of incense — in the holy place or the most holy? Breth- 
ren are on both sides. Please give reasons for apparent discrepancies 
in the Bible on this. 

The place appointed for the altar of incense, or the golden 
altar, was in the holy place, beside the veil that leads into 
the most holy. The most holy was the dwelling place of 
God. The incense arising from the altar without the most 
holy passed through the veil and entered the most holy as 
incense to God. In Ex. 30: 6, 7 the order is given: "And 
thou shalt put it before the veil that is by the ark of the tes- 
timony, before the mercy seat that is over the testimony, 
where I will meet with thee. And Aaron shall burn thereon 
incense of sweet spices: every morning, when he dresseth 
the lamps, he shall burn it." In Ex. 40 : 26, 27 he repeats 



14 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the statement that he placed them as he was commanded: 
"And he put the golden altar in the tent of meeting before 
the veil: and he burnt thereon incense of sweet spices; as 
Jehovah commanded Moses." Because the incense arising 
from this altar reached God in the most holy place, it is 
sometimes spoken of as though it belonged to the most holy 
place. It was placed in the holy place beside the veil that 
enters the most holy, that the incense might, like the 
prayers of the saints, pass through the veil to the presence 
of God. A perversion of one of these figures is seen in the 
pictures intended to represent the cherubim — a couple of 
winged women squatting with their faces opposite each 
other. If one will read the description of the cherubim as 
given in 1 Kings 6 : 23-28 and 2 Chron. 3 : 10-14, he will find 
that they were images ten feet high, reaching the ceiling 
above, the wings extended, touching each other in the cen- 
ter and the walls on each side. They looked toward each 
other. I used to know a Methodist preacher who insisted 
that Methodists should keep up the primitive and approved 
style of kneeling in prayer. In kneeling, many of them 
squatted to keep their knees out of the dirt. This preacher 
got to see who kneeled and who squatted, and reproved the 
latter as following a custom nowhere approved by God. 

AMBASSADORS, ARE THERE ANY NOW? 

Brother Sewell: Has Christ any ambassadors on earth? If so, 
who are they? I understand the apostles to be the last ambassadors. 
Am I right? 

You are certainly right about the apostles being the last 
ambassadors from God to men, and there will certainly be 
no more. The apostles gave fully the conditions of pardon, 
upon compliance with which we can have peace with God, 
and the conditions upon which eternal life can be obtained. 
We have all these conditions on record, and do not need any 
more ambassadors now. What we need now is for men to 
repeat the conditions of salvation the apostles gave. But 
the trouble with the religious world now is that there are 
men who think they are ambassadors, and they give differ- 
ent conditions from those the apostles gave, and thus turn 
the ears of the people away from the conditions the true 
ambassadors gave and turn them to the doctrines and com- 
mandments of men. There are no conditions of salvation 
now from God to men except those given and left on record 
by the apostles. All others are conditions given by unin- 
spired men to men, and all of these combined cannot save 
one sinner. Let all those, therefore, that propose to labor 
for the conversion and salvation of men see to it that they 
repeat the terms of peace and redemption that the apostles 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 15 

gave under guidance of the Holy Spirit. Then all will 
preach alike, and all can be saved if they will comply with 
the terms. 

ANGELS, OFFICE OF. 

Do all believing Christians have a guardian angel? This came up 
in our Sunday-school lesson on Matt. 18: 10, and Mr. Wesley was 
quoted as believing that all Christians had a guardian angel. I am 
not after Mr. Wesley's theory, but I am after the plain truth as taught 
in the word of God by our Lord Jesus Christ and the holy apostles. 
Please give me the best information you can. There are plenty of 
places in the New Testament where the angel of the Lord spoke and 
said things, and the angel of the Lord smote Peter on the side when 
he was in the prison. Also please tell me what is meant in Heb. 1: 
14. Are they not all ministering spirits? Was Paul alluding to the 
prophets and to Jesus and himself and the rest of the apostles? 
"That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father 
which is in heaven." "What was meant by "their angels?" Please 
give me the best information you can on the question, and oblige me. 
I am a subscriber to your paper, and am well pleased with it. I am 
a member of the Methodist Church, but am not satisfied. Brother 
Joiner, of Morgan County, a Christian minister, preached for us 
about two months ago, and promised he would preach more for us 
when the weather got better. I have not been baptized; was sprin- 
kled when a boy. I hope I may get settled as to which is the nearest 
after the teaching of Jesus and the apostles. We have no church 
near here, except Methodist; but 1 am hopeful of Brother Joiner's 
promise to me. I am reading the Bible daily, and find I am learning 
something every day, and feel the help I have already derived from 
your good Gospel Advocate. I am going to order some of your Sab- 
bath-school helps; and if they teach as plain and simply the truths of 
the word of God as the Advocate does, I will try to get our good Meth- 
odist brethren to introduce them into the school. 

I do not find any clear indication in the Bible that each 
person has a guardian angel. Angels came to men during 
the miraculous ages of the world, but always with a clear 
and distinct form and with a clear, well-delivered message 
from God. They never influenced men in a mysterious 
way, nor is there any evidence that they sought to lead 
them or influence them otherwise than through the message 
they delivered to them. None of us believe they come in 
visible form or with an audible message now. If not, I can- 
not see how they can affect men or their courses. The Bi- 
ble says, "The angel of the Lord encampeth round about 
them that fear him;" but this was from the Psalms, when 
angels did come to reveal God's word, and means the same 
thing as the expression : 'Tor the eyes of the Lord are over 
the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers : but 
the face of the Lord is against them that do evil." (1 Pet 
3: 12.) 

The passage in Heb. 1 : 14 clearly refers to the ministry 
of angels in giving the Jewish law and their visitations to 
men under that law. The whole connection is a contrast 



16 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

between the ministry of angels in the Jewish law and the 
ministry of Christ under the Christian dispensation. Read 
from the beginning of the first chapter, and see the superi- 
ority of the ministry of Christ over the ministry of angels 
is continually kept up. Paul says : "To which of the angels 
said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine 
enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spir- 
its, sent forth to minister for them [under their ministra- 
tion] who shall be heirs of salvation ? Therefore we ought 
to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have 
heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. For if the 
word spoken by angels [this shows how and when the an- 
gels were ministering spirits] was steadfast, and every 
transgression and disobedience received a just recompense 
of reward ; how shall we escape, if we neglect so great 
salvation ; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, 
and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him, God 
also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, 
and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, ac- 
cording to his own will?" (Heb. 1 : 13 to 2 : 4.) The con- 
nection clearly shows that the angels ministered to them by 
giving the law and revealing the will of God. It was the 
ministration of angels in contrast with the ministration of 
Christ. The only trouble is, the expression, "ministering 
spirits," is in the present tense. This we think not strong 
enough to break the force of the whole connection. Be- 
sides, they do minister just as the law and the prophets tes- 
tify of Jesus as the Christ. 

The passage, "their angels do always behold the face of my 
Father," means when they are transformed into the angelic 
state, they will then always behold the face of the Father 
in heaven. We do not think there is any evidence of what 
is called "angelic guardianship" here, nor can we see what 
possible office they perform. The will of God is revealed 
and completed in the Bible. Their office was to minister to 
the heirs of salvation by making the will of God known to 
them. When that perfect will was made known, we can see 
no more room for their office. 

It is well always to speak of Bible things in Bible terms. 
It is common to call the Lord's day the "Sabbath," but it 
is never so called in the Bible. Saturday was the Jewish 
Sabbath. Saturday is always referred to when "Sabbath" 
is used. To call the Lord's day "Sabbath" is to confuse 
terms and ideas that ought to be kept distinct. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 17 

ANGELS REJOICING AND FUTURE RECOGNITION. 

Please explain through the Gospel Advocate the following verse: 
"I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner 
that repenteth." (Luke 15: 7.) In 1 Cor. 13: 12, does Paul mean 
that we shall see each other face to face and know each other? 

The passage in Luke, we think, means just what it says. 
There is, doubtless, joy in heaven over a sinner that truly 
repents, truly turns from sin into the service of God. The 
angels of heaven, doubtless, know what is going on in earth, 
as angels are ministers for those who shall be heirs of sal- 
vation. This passage shows the interest that is felt and 
manifested in behalf of men by those in heaven. 

As to the passage in Corinthians, we cannot speak defi- 
nitely. Some think that Paul in this passage had reference 
to the perfected state of the church and to the completeness 
of the revelation of all matters pertaining to the new insti- 
tution, so that they could comprehend at once the whole 
scheme of human redemption. In the days of the apostles 
these things were only given in parts — just so much at a 
time as was needed at a certain place or time or occasion ; 
but finally, little by little, the whole was fully given, until 
they could comprehend the whole matter, as a friend knows 
his friend when face to face with him. Others, however, 
think Paul had reference to heaven, when all the fullness of 
God's mercy and love will be fully and clearly disclosed be- 
fore our eyes, and that then we shall know all things per- 
taining to eternity. And if this idea is correct, then the 
passage certainly includes the idea that we shall know each 
other there. We do not think that either interpretation 
would do violence to other passages on the subject; and we, 
therefore, will not say definitely, but have generally inclined 
to the first-named interpretation. 

ANOINTED, WHEN WAS CHRIST? 

When was Christ anointed Prophet, Priest, and King? 

Christ says: "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because 
he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor,'' etc. 
(Luke 4: 18.) The Lord was anointed as a preacher and 
teacher when the Holy Spirit was given him after his bap- 
tism, as is indicated in this passage. But he was not con- 
stituted high priest while he was on this earth. Paul says : 
"For if he were on earth, he should not be a priest, seeing 
that there are priests that offer gifts according to the law." 
(Heb. 8:4.) This is equivalent to saying that he was not 
a priest while he was on earth. But the last verse of Heb. 
7 tells when he was made high priest, and how: "For the 
law maketh men high priests which have infirmity ; but the 



18 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

word of the oath, which was since the law, maketh the Son, 
who is consecrated for evermore. ,, "The word of the oath, 
which was since the law." The law did not die till the 
death of Christ. It is, therefore, certain that Christ was 
not made high priest till after his death ; and after his death 
and up to the ascension he was not made high priest. 
Hence he was made high priest when he ascended, and was 
made "King of kings, and Lord of lords," at the right hand 
of God in heaven. He is there now as our high priest, to 
appear in the presence of God for us. 

ANOINTING WITH OIL AND PRAYER. 

Brother Sewell: Please give us your views on James 5: 13-15. Is 
not that portion of his letter as applicable to us in this age as any- 
other portion of it? If not, how can we know where to draw the 
line? In verse 17 he refers to Elijah's being a man subject to like 
passions as we are, and then speaks of the efficacy of his prayer. Is 
not the want of faith and works on our part the reason why our 
prayers are not efficacious in cases like those mentioned in the verses 
referred to above? 

Verse 13 is plainly applicable to Christians at the pres- 
ent time. All Christians suffering afflictions should pray- 
to God for help in these afflictions — in fact, all Christians 
should pray to God at all times, and then when afflictions 
come their special prayers will be regarded. People that 
are merry should always sing psalms rather than go into 
frivolity. But as to the matter of praying for the sick, 
with the full assurance that they will be restored, there are 
differences of judgment regarding this. Some think this 
pertained to the miraculous age of the church, and that the 
raising up of the sick had special reference to miraculous 
healing; and to this idea I am inclined. But, at the same 
time, anointing with oil is a good remedy in many things, 
and would be no bad thing to do in any case where oil could 
be beneficial. Calling the elders together and praying for 
the recovery of the sick, praying that the efforts made to 
cure the sick may be made effectual, is also a good thing to 
do at any time. And in all such prayers there should be 
the meek and humble expression: "Thy will, not mine, be 
done." Then after all these things are done, if our sick do 
not recover, we should confidingly submit, Joblike, and still 
praise the name of the Lord. And while these prayers are 
going on for the recovery of the sick, if the sick member 
has committed sins, he should sincerely repent of and con- 
fess his sins to God and all pray together for their forgive- 
ness. All this, I think, would be proper and right. But to 
expect speedy and certain cure of the disease of the sick, I 
think, belonged to the age of miracles. Prayers for heal- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 19 

ing, through the general laws of healing, for the success of 
our efforts to heal, I think, are in order all the time. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain James 5 : 14, 15. It seems that 
James was writing to Christians. Of course they were Jewish Chris- 
tions; but are not all Christians entitled to the same privilege? And 
if the elders should pray faithfully, anointing with oil as instructed, 
does it not seem that the Lord has promised to raise the sick, not 
only then, but through all coming ages? If not, why not? 

With the meaning our brother attaches to this passage, 
how could any Christian have died in reach of the elders 
with oil ? If the elders could have cured every one that got 
sick, certainly none would have died or lingered in sickness ; 
and if that order had become perpetual, a Christian in reach 
of elders and oil would never die. The scripture, whether 
applicable now or not, was in some sense true in the early 
days. Was there ever a time when Christians did not 
sicken and die? If God had ordained all that the elders 
anointed with oil and prayed over should recover, why did 
they not cure all? Why would any die? Why would 
Epaphroditus come nigh unto death ministering to Paul? 
(Phil. 2: 27.) Many sickened and died during the days of 
the apostles and of the miraculously endowed. So I take it 
James did not mean to say that all were or would be cured 
in this way at any time. Because this is so, I hardly think 
it was a miraculous cure. I think he only meant to say 
that if the sick would send for the elders and they would 
pray for them and anoint them with oil, those who could be 
cured at all would be cured in this way. That means that 
this was the best system of treating diseases and would 
cure all that could be cured. This may be true now. It 
may mean that anointing with oil was a remedial system 
very common at that day, and probably better than any in 
vogue. The practice of medicine then was a crude mixture 
of superstition and conjuration; so with the use of oil as a 
remedial agent the prayers of the elders should be con- 
nected. That would teach us that with any remedial agent 
we should connect the prayers of the elders. I think that 
just what was taught by James is applicable now, but I do 
not think he taught all would be cured at any time. That 
was not an antidote to mortality and would not stop the 
work of death. 

ANTICHRIST, THE SPIRIT OF. 

Please explain, through the Gospel Advocate, 1 John 4 : 2,3. 

This scripture seems to recognize that there is a spirit 
peculiar to every system of teaching. A class of teachers 
had arisen in the church, claiming to be inspired or sent of 



20 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

God, who denied that Christ had come in the flesh. He 
says: "They went out from us, but they were not of us." 
It is probable that these teachers exhibited some ability to 
work wonders, as evil spirits in the days of the Savior pos- 
sessed such power. John's letters were written to warn 
against these false teachers who were guided by these spir- 
its. He urged them to try the spirits. Paul to the Corin- 
thians, warning against the same class, said : "If any man 
think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual [inspired], let 
him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are 
the commandments of the Lord." This is a command to 
test those claiming inspiration by the word of God. This 
shows that obedience to the word of God even in the days 
of the apostles was regarded as a higher evidence of accept- 
ance with God than the power to prophesy or do wonders. 
John tells them that those denying in his day that Christ 
had come in the flesh were of antichrist. Antichrist was 
to come "with all power and signs and lying wonders, and 
with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that per- 
ish." These spirits which worked wonders were all to be 
tested — proved by the word of God — and one who did not 
conform to the word of God, even though he should work 
wonders and signs, was to be rejected. Conforming to the 
word of God is the only test of acceptance with God. Then 
the spirit in those persons led them to confess that Christ 
had come in the flesh. To do this was to recognize him by 
obeying him as Christ the Lord. "No man can call Jesus 
Lord, save by the Holy Ghost." The spirit that prompted 
others to deny that he was come in the flesh was of anti- 
christ. Antichrist was a spiritual power, but a wicked 
spirit. These verses recognize there were many spirits 
gone out into the world. These spirits worked wonders. 
All were to be tried by the word of God. Only those who 
acknowledged that Christ had come in the flesh, which is the 
same as to acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ, were of 
God. All who denied this, which was a denial that Christ 
is the Son of God, were of antichrist. 

ANTICHRIST, WHO IS HE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If it would not intrude on your 
patience, I would like for you to give me some light on the subject of 
antichrist. 1 John 2: 22 says: "Who is a liar but he that denieth 
that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father 
and the Son." But as I never heard any person say he did not be- 
lieve in Christ, I am at a loss to ascertain who the liar is. "So that 
he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is 
God." (2 Thess. 2:4.) "And for this cause God shall send them 
strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be 
damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteous- 
ness." (Verses 11, 12.) 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 21 

The word antichrist means against Christ, opposed to 
him. A man that in any way opposes Christ is an anti- 
christ. Denying that Christ is divine, denying the exist- 
ence of such a being, is one way of opposing him. But 
there are people all over the land that do deny Christ, that 
utterly refuse to believe on him. Then many who are the 
pretended friends of Christ are in their teaching and prac- 
tice opposed to him and are among the very worst enemies 
he has. They pervert and hide the truth and put the doc- 
trines and commandments of men in the front. Whenever 
you see any of these things, you see antichrist. 

The power spoken of in 2 Thess. is the great apostasy 
from the truth that is foretold in many places in the Bible. 
It is the "mystery, Babylon the great," spoken of in Rev- 
elation. It is generally understood that Roman Catholi- 
cism is the largest development of the man of sin known in 
our land ; but any movement among religious people in the 
way of creed making or councils, or any other thing that 
sets aside the word of God, is that much of the man of sin. 
Any man that says the word of God is insufficient and puts 
something else in its place exalts himself above God, and 
his wisdom is greater than the wisdom of God. 

When men resist the plain truth of God, will not receive 
and act upon it, God then sends strong delusion upon such, 
that they may believe a lie and be damned, because they 
would not receive the truth in the love of it that they might 
be saved. But these delusions are only sent to those that 
will not receive the truth. Those who are satisfied with the 
plain truth of the word of God can always learn enough of 
it to be saved by it, and such need not be uneasy. But when 
men see the truth and then will not receive it, they are in 
danger of the delusion spoken of. E. G. S. 

APOSTLES, WERE THEY BAPTIZED? 

I am requested to ask Brother E. G. Sewell to write a piece in re- 
gard to the proof of the baptism of the apostles. 

Regarding John the Baptist it was said: "And many of 
the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 
And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, 
to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the 
disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a peo- 
ple prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1: 16, 17.) John was 
to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. How did 
he do this? Answer: "And he came into all the country 
about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the 
remission of sins." (Luke 3: 3.) Every man that heard 
and believed the preaching of John, repented, and was bap- 



22 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tized by him, received remission of sins, and in this way- 
was made ready, prepared for the Lord. But those that 
refused to be baptized of John, rejected the counsel of God 
against themselves. (Luke 7: 30.) When Christ came 
and selected his apostles, they were from among his disci- 
ples, and his first disciples were assuredly of those baptized 
by John, and were thus made ready for him. Therefore, 
the apostles were baptized by John in Jordan. 

To suppose that the Savior would select his apostles 
from among men that rejected the baptism of John, when 
John's mission was to make ready a people prepared for the 
Lord, is preposterous, especially so when those that re- 
jected John's baptism rejected the counsel of God. And 
would Jesus have selected his apostles from those that re- 
jected his Father? Impossible, because Christ says of the 
apostles in his prayer to his Father: "While I was with 
them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that 
thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but 
the son of perdition ; that the scripture might be fulfilled." 
(John 17: 12.) 

God gave the apostles to Christ ; and can any one believe 
that God, after sending John the Baptist before Christ to 
prepare his way, to make his paths straight, to make ready 
a people prepared for the Lord, would then give him the 
apostles from among those that refused John's baptism, 
which means they had refused God himself? The man 
that could believe that is not to be reasoned with. More- 
over, God required Christ, his own Son, to be baptized of 
John before he had showed himself to Israel and before he 
owned him as his Son in the presence of the people; and 
Christ recognized the authority and will of the Father in 
the matter of baptism when he said to John : "Suffer it to 
be so now: for thus it becometh us to fulfill all righteous- 
ness." 

Thus it was the will of God that Christ should be bap- 
tized. Now, will any one say that God, after requiring Je- 
sus to be baptized, having also sent John before him to make 
ready a people for him, would then select the apostles out 
of a lot of men that had already rejected him in refusing 
John's baptism and give them to his Son as rebels against 
himself, when he did not own his own Son in the presence of 
the people till he was baptized ? A man that can believe this 
could very easily believe any error that has ever been taught 
by man, even down to the effusions of Robert Ingersoll. 
But surely these reasons are sufficient to convince any one 
that believes the Bible that the apostles were baptized by 
John. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 23 

APOSTLES, WHEN INSPIRED. 

Brother Lipscomb: I want you to explain when the twelve apos- 
tles were inspired — on the day of Pentecost or before? I think they 
were before, for Matt. 10: 7, 8 says: "And as ye go, preach, saying, 
The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, 
raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give." 
Mark 6: 13 also says: "And they cast out many devils, and anointed 
with oil many that were sick, and healed them." Luke 9: 1 also says: 
"Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power 
and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases." 

There can be no doubt but that the apostles were en- 
dowed with the power of working miracles and possessed a 
measure of the Spirit of inspiration previous to the day of 
Pentecost. But the Holy Spirit came in the fullness of his 
power on Pentecost, and they were then fully endued with 
the knowledge which the Spirit revealed and were plenarily 
inspired. There are different degrees of inspiration, cor- 
responding to the measure of the Spirit received. The full 
apostolic measure was received on Pentecost. D. L. 

ARK, HOW LONG IN BUILDING. 

Will you please answer through the Gospel Advocate how long 
Noah was in building the ark? 

We cannot tell. He may have been ten, twenty, or one 
hundred and twenty years. The Bible does not settle the 
time. He built the ark, as the Bible plainly declares, but it 
does not tell how long it took him. E. G. S. 

ARTICLE, THE DEFINITE, IN GREEK. 

Brother Lipscomb: I see an article in the Baptist, Volume XI., 
No. 11, page 327, headed "The," in which it is said that Rom. 3 : 1 
should read "the circumcision." On Rom. 3 : 4 it says that "our trans- 
lators have inserted 'the' before 'law,' making the passage refer to 
some particular law, moral or ceremonial, when it is not in the origi- 
nal text." Further on it says: "It is by works of law, any law — 
moral, ceremonial, or ecclesiastical — and, therefore, not by baptism, 
as the law of pardon." Now, I want to know if this champion, who 
fears none and debates with all (except Brethren Brents and Swee- 
ney), is correct in his rendering, or does he not make void the truth 
of the gospel by trying to establish a human-made plan of salvation? 

The writer in the Baptist is not the first to discover a 
wonderful "mare's-nest" in the use of the Greek article 
with the term law. Several of our learned brethren 
about Lexington, Ky., some years ago advanced the same 
idea in reference to its use. They only made a different 
application of it. It is likely the editor of the Baptist bor- 
rowed the mistake from them, as he has but little originality 
of thought. There is nothing in it. Mr. Griffin presented 
the same idea in a discussion we held with him. The use 



24 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of the article in Greek is a very indefinite matter, and is 
oftener used or not used for the sake of euphony than on 
any other grounds. Take, for instance, this sentence. 
The article is attached in Greek to the word circumcision, 
but it does not necessarily mean the Jews. The article is 
attached to the word God in the next verse. Does this 
mean some particular god among many gods? The term 
God is frequently used in the same sense without the arti- 
cle attached. In verse 5 the word God is twice used. It 
refers to the same great Jehovah in both instances. In the 
first instance it has no article; in the second the article is 
attached. It is simply a matter of sound. Following some 
words, the term God would be harsh and difficult of calling. 
Then the article is used to give a soft and flowing style, 
easily pronounced. This use or nonuse of the article is 
common in the New Testament with reference to the term 
God, the term law, and various other terms. 

Our brother evidently misquotes his reference to the use 
of the article with law; but we give an example to show 
that the article is used or absented even when the Mosaic 
law is referred to : "The law, which was four hundred and 
thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the 
promise of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the 
law, it is no more of promise : but God gave it to Abraham 
by promise. Wherefore then serveth the law?" (Gal. 3 : 17- 
19.) Now, there is a distinct reference to the law of 
Moses given four hundred and thirty years after the prom- 
ise made to Abraham ; but there is no article connected with 
it, either in verses 17 or 18. In verse 19 the article is con- 
nected with it. In verse 21 it is used again with the arti- 
cle first, afterwards in the same verse without the article. 
No sane man can doubt that all these refer to one and the 
same law. It shows conclusively that the article is used 
for other purposes than distinguishing between a specific 
law and law in general. The article did not occupy pre- 
cisely the same office in Greek that it does in English. The 
pronominal adjective fills this office. D. L. 

ASCENSION, CHRIST'S. 

Brother Lipscomb: Did Jesus Christ ascend with his fleshly body 
into heaven? If so, please harmonize the scripture that no flesh nor 
blood shall enter heaven. 

Jesus arose with the same body, with the same wounds 
with which he died. We have no account of any change in 
this body. But Paul says: "We shall not all sleep, but we 
shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an 
eye, at the last trump." (1 Cor. 15: 51, 52.) As Christ 
was not changed in the grave, because he wished to appear 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 25 

to man in his mortal flesh, he was, no doubt, changed, as 
those who are not in their graves will be changed, in a 
twinkling as he ascended. 

ASKING, SEEKING, KNOCKING. 

What is meant by saying: "Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, 
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you?" (Matt. 
7: 7.) Who is he talking to? Also please explain verse 11 and Acts 
2: 41. 

It seems to me three plainer sentences cannot be found in 
the Bible. They mean exactly what they say, meaning al- 
ways, as Christ so often declares, that we shall ask accord- 
ing to God's will, seek where he has directed, and knock at 
his appointed door, and the blessings asked, sought, and 
knocked for shall be obtained. There is nothing mysterious 
or singular or difficult to understand that we can see. This 
is laid down as a general principle. Many specific direc- 
tions involving this same principle, with the modifications, 
are presented in the Bible. "If we ask anything according 
to his will, he heareth us." (1 John 4: 14.) "Ye ask, and 
receive not, because ye ask amiss." (James 4: 3.) "Strive 
to enter in at the strait gate : for many, I say unto you, will 
seek to enter in, and shall not be able. When once the mas- 
ter of the house is risen up, and hath shut to the door, and 
ye begin to stand without, and to knock at the door, saying, 
Lord, Lord, open unto us ; and he shall answer and say unto 
you, I know you not whence ye are." (Luke 13: 24, 25.) 
These show that the asking, seeking, knocking must be done 
according to the will of God, else they cannot meet the prom- 
ise. Verse 11 cannot be made plainer. It says God is 
more ready to give good things to his children than we are 
to ours. Acts 2 : 41 says those who received the words 
spoken by Peter were baptized as he directed, and three 
thousand were added to them (the disciples) . 

"AT HAND," MEANING OF. 

A Baptist brother, preaching on "The Establishment of the King- 
dom," quoted Matt. 11: 12; Luke 16: 16-21. In explaining Matt. 3: 
2, "the kingdom of heaven is at hand," he says it means "already 
there." He gave for an example that having received a letter, to 

which we were going to reply, we would say: "Yours of is at 

hand." Please give us your views on the same. 

The Greek verb rendered by the phrase "is at hand" in 
our Common Version literally signifies to approach, to draw 
near. The perfect tense is used in this passage in the 
Greek, and would be correctly rendered has come near, has 
approached. To draw near is one thing, and to be actually 
present, set up, is another. We have the very same Greek 



26 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

word, in the same tense, differently rendered, in Luke 10, 
where the Savior, in giving instructions to the seventy, tells 
them if they entered a house or city that would not receive 
them, to shake the dust from their feet against them, and 
tells them to say : "Notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that 
the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you." This shows 
exactly what is meant in Matt. 3 — that the kingdom was 
nigh unto them. The kingdom of God was near when John 
began his preaching, and this is just what is said in the pas- 
sage. John began the preparatory state of the kingdom, 
and this preparatory state continued till the crucifixion of 
Jesus, and the church was fully set up when the Spirit 
came upon the apostles on the day of Pentecost. The king- 
dom was present in its preparatory state when John began 
his preaching, and this explains the passages that speak of 
the kingdom as present while Christ was still on earth, 
such as when Jesus says: "And from the days of John the 
Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, 
and the violent take it by force." (Matt. 11: 12.) The 
kingdom was present in its preparatory state and suffered 
violence before Jesus died ; but after this Jesus said : "Upon 
this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall 
not prevail against it." (Matt. 16: 18.) The words will 
build signify something to be done in the future, as every 
one knows; and as this was said after the other passage 
which speaks of the kingdom as already suffering violence, 
the first one must refer to the preparatory state, in which it 
was then present, while the other refers to the full estab- 
lishment of the church, which was then in the future, but 
was fully established on the day of Pentecost, when three 
thousand entered by a law that was never preached to men 
on this earth till that day. E. G. S. 

BALAAM, THE CASE OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Num. 22: 20-22 we read: "And 
God came unto Balaam at night, and said unto him, If the men come 
to call thee, rise up, and go with them ; but yet the word which I shall 
say unto thee, that shalt thou do. And Balaam rose up in the morn- 
ing, and saddled his ass, and went with the princes of Moab. And 
God's anger was kindled because he went: and the angel of the Lord 
stood in the way for an adversary against him." Now, if the above 
is true, what assurance have we of being blessed in doing what God 
tells us to do? You may say that he did something that God did not 
tell him to do, but it seems that God's anger was kindled for the sim- 
ple act of his going. Please answer in the Gospel Advocate. 

This case of Balaam is precisely a similar one to that of 
the Israelites desiring a king to rule over them in the days 
of Samuel, the prophet, as recorded in 1 Sam. 8. Here they 
wished something contrary to the provisions he had made. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 27 

He decreed they should have it as a punishment for dissatis- 
faction with his will; He gave the king, accompanied with 
the warning as to the evils that should follow. 

Balaam gave a sort of obedience to God, but would not 
accept God's decree as a finality, and showed his anxiety to 
go contrary to God's will by coming to God to see if he 
would not change this decision. God, provoked at the dis- 
position to rebel and the seeking God to change his mind 
and decree, did change it, and gave the command — or, 
rather, permission — for him to go. He did it under cir- 
cumstances that Balaam ought to have understood that it 
was left him to rebel against God if he desired. And the 
going now against the refusal of God was an indication of 
his anxiety to go contrary to the word of God. When he 
did this, God's anger was kindled against him. 

It is a principle clearly laid down in the Bible that when 
men do not wish to obey God's commands out of pure rever- 
ence for his authority, God permits them to go the way they 
love. They usually satisfy their consciences and think they 
do God's service; yet the course they follow only leads to 
their destruction as a punishment for dissatisfaction with 
his will. Here he told Balaam not to go. Balaam returned 
to him, asking if he might not go, or to see if he would not 
change his mind. God, provoked at this dissatisfaction, 
told him to go ; but when he went, God's anger was kindled 
against him to his destruction. 

The only difference between this case and that in 1 Sam. 
8 is, here the permission to go, contrary to the expressed 
will of God, is given without the warning of the results, as 
was in that case. The reason of this difference may be 
found in the fact that Balaam was a prophet and less ex- 
cusable in his course than these uninspired people. It is an 
admonition to us that we should take God at his word with- 
out preferences of our own. If we desire other ways, he 
will let us follow them to our ruin. D. L. 

BALL PLAYING, IS IT CONFORMING TO THE WORLD? 

Paul says (Rom. 12: 2), "Be not conformed to this world;" and 
John says (1 John 2: 15) : "Love not the world, neither the things 
that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Fa- 
ther is not in him." Now, I am well aware that there is a line of dis- 
tinction between the world and disciples of Christ; but just where, in 
all cases, I do not know. For instance, there is here in Midway a 
baseball club, and they meet Saturday evenings to play. I do not 
belong to the club, though I have played a few times, and I find it 
excellent to develop one's muscles. For no other purpose would I 
participate. It has its evil associations; but they play here in town, 
so there is very little ungentlemanly behavior. Now, do I cross the 
bounds of a Christian life when I share the sport with them? Am I 
"conformed to this world" in so doing? 



28 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

We were never in a baseball club, and know but little 
about them, but suppose the right or the wrong would de- 
pend largely upon the sort of people that compose them 
and the manner in which they are carried on. If decent, 
well-behaved young men that are most of their time con- 
fined to indoor work, as clerks, get together occasionally 
and in a gentlemanly manner, so that nothing improper shall 
be said or done while the game is going on, we do not see 
that there would be any more harm in that than in the jo- 
vial running on, extravagant talking and laughing, and 
slang style that is usually indulged in by young people when 
they are together. But where wicked, profane, and ob- 
scene young men get together in such plays, we think Chris- 
tians should keep out of them ; and not only out of such 
plays with young men of that character, but Christians 
ought as .far as possible to keep out of the society of such 
men at all times, except to endeavor to teach and influence 
them to better things. Just simply as a matter of pastime, 
Christians should not associate with such people. Their 
own morals will be corrupted by such association. Every 
child of God should be striving every day not only to grow 
better himself, but to make others better, to exert an influ- 
ence over all around for good. But there is a lack among 
the members of the church in these matters when with the 
wicked, the vulgar, and the rude. Instead of exerting an 
influence over them for good, they are too apt to partake 
with them in their wild ways, rather than so act as to win 
others from their folly. We think whether a young man 
who is a member of the church should play in a baseball 
club, or others of a similar character, or not, should depend 
upon his own character as much almost as theirs. If he 
can go among them and improve them by his association 
with them, he might without impropriety go among them, 
and might even do good in so doing. 

But if a Christian is disposed to love wild company him- 
self and to fall into the habits of the low and vicious, then 
for his own sake he had better stay entirely away from evil 
influences. A Christian should be careful never to go into 
any societies unless he can either receive good from them 
or impart good to them. If no good is to result either way, 
then make that a reason for staying away. Nothing is 
more blighting to a Christian's character than evil associ- 
ation, unless he has strength enough in himself, derived 
from God's divine appointments, to overcome the evil. If 
he is weak enough for the worldly influence to overcome 
him, he had better always keep away from them. Before 
a young Christian goes into a baseball club, or any other 
sort of club, he should consider first whether he be able to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 29 

resist any bad influence any association with them might 
bring upon him and come out unscathed. In the next place, 
he should consider whether he is able to exert any good in- 
fluence upon them that will have any tendency to elevate 
them and turn their attention in any wise to the religion of 
Christ or not. If he decides that the character of those 
persons is such that they are beyond the reach of good in- 
fluences, he should keep away from them. E. G. S. 

BAND, JOINING A BRASS, ETC. 

Some of the brethren who desire to take a leading part in the 
church work joined a brass band. They would engage in band prac- 
tice during our protracted meeting, at the same hour of service. They 
would also practice instead of attending prayer meeting. We ad- 
monished them not to let the band interfere with their church work. 
They would reject the admonition, and, besides, have given a concert 
in which they burlesqued the church and an elder, and one feature of 
the program was a dance, with banjo music. (Inclosed find their 
program.) The church has withdrawn from the brethren, charging 
them with reveling and such like, which Paul condemns in Gal. 5 : 21. 
They ignore the action of the church, and claim they will take part 
in our services, and we cannot keep them from it. Have we acted on 
scriptural grounds, and how shall we protect ourselves from imposi- 
tion by them? We desire to do only what the Book teaches. 

Joining a brass band or performing in it is not necessa- 
rily sinful. The habits and practices of it may lead into sin 
that Christians ought not to countenance and that a church 
ought not to tolerate in its members. It is just as lawful 
to cultivate music in a brass band as in any other way, if 
no sinful practices are encouraged or participated in. I 
think the custom of the bands in small towns is to lead out 
into things that are wrong. The program of this minstrel 
concert seems to me to indicate that no Christian should 
participate in it. "Comic songs," a "negro sermon," a 
"dance," and a "breakdown" constitute items of it. Cer- 
tainly no Christian could engage in or encourage these. 
Then it leads to other associations that are evil, to com- 
pany that lowers the standard of morality, and to the ridi- 
cule of religion, and does not obey the admonition of the 
Spirit, which says: "Let no corrupt communication pro- 
ceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use 
of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers." 
(Eph. 4: 29.) 

Then this seems to me very manifest revelry. Revel is 
defined: "To feast with loose and clamorous merriment; to 
carouse; to wanton." This is condemned as unworthy of 
Christians. It is especially sinful, and shows a low reli- 
gious feeling that will cause Christians to neglect church 
services and Christian worship and instruction to engage 



30 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

in such things. Persons following this course ought to be 
remonstrated with, and, if possible, saved from such 
courses. If not, spiritual ruin must be their portion. A 
man of any self-respect or Christian feeling cannot force 
himself on a church or claim its privileges which has ex- 
cluded him. If a man has been, by the customary way, ex- 
cluded from a church, he has no more right to participate 
in the privileges of the church than if he had never belonged 
to it — no more right to force himself upon it than he has 
to force himself upon the privileges of a private family. 
The civil courts would protect the church from such intru- 
sion as readily as they would protect a private family. We 
mention this for the benefit of those who attempt such 
things. A church had better bear patiently with such in- 
trusions than to appeal to the courts. D. L. 

BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF CHRIST. 

Brother Lipscomb: There is a people among us who deny the au- 
thority in Matt. 28: 19, where Jesus says: "Go ye therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost." They say this baptism is not in the name of 
Christ, and they claim all the authority we have to baptize was given 
by Peter on the day of Pentecost; that that was in the name of Jesus 
Christ, and not in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
They say Christ is head, and we must be baptized in his name only; 
and in so doing we honor Christ first, and in honoring him we honor 
God and the Holy Ghost. They further say that Peter had power to 
bind and loose whatsoever he would on earth and it should be bound 
in heaven ; and he nowhere bound baptism in the name of the Father, 
Son, and Holy Ghost. Please give us your views through the Gospel 
Advocate. Please state if the baptism in Matt. 28: 19 is in the name 
of Christ. Did Peter have power to bind or loose anything that Christ 
did not bind or loose? 

Either our brother misunderstands the people of whom 
he speaks or they fail to understand very plain and simple 
matters. To do a thing in the name of a person is to do it 
by the authority of that person. To baptize in the name 
or by the authority of Jesus, one must have his authority. 
He must authorize them to do it. The apostles, as well as 
others, must baptize in the name of Jesus Christ. He must 
give that authority. In Matt. 28: 19 there is no account 
of any baptism being performed. It only tells that Jesus 
authorized his disciples to go and baptize. They did this 
first at Pentecost. "All power [all authority] is given unto 
me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore [by my au- 
thority] , and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : teach- 
ing them to observe all things whatsoever I have com- 
manded you." (Matt. 28: 18-20.) In this Jesus author- 
izes the apostles to teach and baptize by his authority, or in 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 31 

his name. On Pentecost, about ten days after his ascen- 
sion, the Holy Spirit came, and the apostles did what Christ 
authorized them to do in Matt. 28: 19. They, in his name, 
or by his authority, preached and baptized. The authority 
was Matt. 28 : 19. They acted on this authority at Pente- 
cost ; they preached in the name of Jesus Christ. The two 
scriptures stand related to each other as the giving of a 
command and the obeying it. Jesus, in Matt. 28 : 19, com- 
mands the disciples; on Pentecost they obeyed this com- 
mand. What Jesus commanded, the apostles did. One is 
doing what the other commanded to be done. Whatever is 
done in the name of Jesus Christ is done in the name of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; for these three are 
one. Jesus commanded what he had heard of his Father, 
and the Holy Spirit was sent in the name of Jesus Christ, 
to call to their remembrance all things they had heard of 
Christ. (John 14 : 26.) "He will guide you into all truth : 
for he shall not speak of [or from] himself ; but whatsoever 
he shall hear, that shall he speak." (John 16 : 13.) What- 
ever is done in the name of one is done in the name of the 
three. Again, a man must come into a house before he can 
live and act in it; so we must come into the names of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit before we can act in his name. 
Then persons must be baptized into Christ before they can 
act in him or by his authority. In Matt. 28 : 19 the proper 
translation as given in the Revision and in all late transla- 
tions is : "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the na- 
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of 
the Son and of the Holy Ghost." They are put into the 
names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit 
by baptism. They are then in condition to act in his name, 
as members of his body and as his servants ; and when they 
were baptized into these names, the apostles were to teach 
them to do all that Jesus had commanded them, which in- 
cluded teaching and baptizing others, all people, of every 
nation. They are to be baptized into his name, then in his 
name, or by his authority, they are to baptize others, just 
as the apostles did. Jesus told the apostles: "But tarry ye 
in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power 
from on high." (Luke 24: 49.) "But ye shall receive 
power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you : and ye 
shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Ju- 
dea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the 
earth." (Acts 1:8.) Neither Peter nor the apostles were 
authorized to do anything save as the Holy Spirit guided 
them to do what Jesus had taught them. 



32 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

BAPTISM, FORMULA IN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it essentially necessary in baptism to say: 
"I baptize you into the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?" An- 
swer and oblige. 

We know of no necessity for saying one word in baptism 
to render it valid. We have no intimation in the Bible 
that there was any formula repeated, nor do we believe 
there was. The believer made known his faith in Christ; 
was taken upon this confession or declaration of faith and 
baptized. The baptism that was done put them into the 
names of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. 

The repeating the formula is a declaration of what is 
done, but it is not essential to the doing. It shows the ten- 
dency to mere ritualism, having faith in repeating formu- 
las, etc., that persons run into these days. A man must 
eat and drink and work and trade in the name of Jesus. 
There is just as much necessity for saying, "I take this 
bread, I drink this water, I plow this furrow or plant this 
corn in the name of the Lord, I sell this horse in the name 
of the Lord," to make it acceptable as in the name of the 
Lord, as to say: "I baptize in the name of Christ, into the 
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." 
All that a Christian does, is or should be in the name of the 
Lord. If a Christian were to take a person who declared 
his faith in Christ and baptize him without uttering a word, 
it would be valid baptism. There is no harm when you do 
a thing in telling what you do, save as people come to attach 
a virtue to the words spoken, not to the submission of the 
individual to the Lord. The formula is only a telling what 
you are doing. The Lord knows without being told ; the 
subject knows, if a proper one; the administrator knows 
what he is doing; and most intelligent believers know. It 
may be well to tell the audience for the benefit of ignorant 
hearers, but it certainly is not necessary to the validity of 
the ordinance. D. L. 

BAPTISM AND PARDON. 

1. Can a person believe, as stated by you in the notice of mine, and 
receive water baptism, and still be unpardoned? 

2. Is it your honest conviction from your knowledge of the Scrip- 
tures that no one is saved (living under Christian privileges and obli- 
gations) but those who comply with all the conditions mentioned by 
you? 

Your first question is: "Can a person believe, as stated 
by you in the notice of mine, and receive water baptism, and 
still be unpardoned?" We answer, no, if baptized in 
every way according to the New Testament. There are 
several things necessary to constitute a person a proper 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 33 

subject of baptism. A man must not only believe with all 
his heart, as Philip said to the eunuch, but he is required to 
repent ; for all men everywhere are required to repent, and 
have not the promise of pardon till they do repent. The 
Holy Spirit, through Peter, on the day of Pentecost, said to 
the inquiring believers : "Repent, and be baptized every one 
of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of 
sins." Now, those people, although they already believed, 
could not have been baptized according to the will of God 
without first obeying the command to repent ; for that came 
first, and, therefore, is a prerequisite to baptism. And 
when a sinner first believes, and then repents, and upon 
the confession of his faith is baptized, he is then as certainly 
pardoned as that the word of God is true. There is no 
doubt about it. Jesus said, "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ;" and if that is not true, there is noth- 
ing in the Bible that can be relied on. When Jesus said 
"shall be saved/' he meant just what he said, or the New 
Testament is not worth anything to man. A man might 
believe, and then, without any repentance, without any love 
to God, but from some fleshly motive, might deceive men, 
might make the confession, and be put under the water, 
and not be pardoned. But this would not be baptism ac- 
cording to the New Testament, and such a one would only 
be a greater sinner in the sight of God than before. But 
when he has been prepared for baptism by a sincere faith 
in the gospel and a genuine repentance and confession of 
Christ with the mouth, and is then baptized with an honest 
desire to obey God — if that man is not pardoned when he 
does it, then there is no pardon and the Bible is a failure. 
Will you undertake to say that such a one is not pardoned ? 
No; I am sure you cannot say so, and would not for the 
world. In this we must be agreed, if you believe the word 
of God. But if a man be put under the water from any 
other motive than to obey and honor God so as to obtain his 
promises, such is in no proper sense baptism and could be 
worth nothing in the world. 

As to your second question, it amounts to asking me 
whether I honestly believe the Bible or not. The condi- 
tions that I mentioned in my other notice to your inquiries 
are the conditions that God has given in his word. The 
language you allude to in my other article is in these words : 
"When men hear the gospel as preached by the apostles, 
believe it with the heart, repent of their sins, confess Je- 
sus, and are baptized into him, they have the promise of 
pardon, and not till then." Now, which one of these will 
you leave out? For each one of them is mentioned some- 
where as coming before pardon. Whether you regard the 



34 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

confession as a condition of pardon or not, it was required 
by Philip of the eunuch before he would baptize him, and 
it, therefore, comes in with faith and repentance and before 
baptism; and whether you regard is as a condition of par- 
don or simply as a verbal manifestation of one's faith to the 
preacher, we are not concerned now; but it comes in with 
requirements that are conditions of pardon, and that, too, 
before baptism, and the promise of pardon does not come 
in till the last condition is complied with. Will you say 
that faith is not necessary to the promise of pardon? 
Surely not, for Jesus says : "He that believeth not shall be 
damned." Will you leave out repentance? Jesus said: 
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Will you 
leave out baptism? It was said of those that rejected 
John's baptism that "they rejected the counsel of God 
against themselves." And do you suppose it will be a less 
matter to reject the baptism commanded by the Savior than 
that preached by John? If the Pharisees and lawyers re- 
jected the counsel of God in refusing to be baptized by 
John, do you not think you would also reject the counsel of 
God against yourself if you were to reject the baptism 
commanded by Jesus and practiced by the apostles every- 
where they went and preached? And do you think you 
could have the promise of pardon and at the same time re- 
ject the counsel of God against yourself by refusing a pos- 
itive command of God? How about those Pharisees and 
lawyers that rejected the counsel of God against them- 
selves? Will you say they were saved while rejecting God's 
counsel? I do not think you can say so. But you may say 
baptism is not a condition of pardon. If you do, then I will 
prove in precisely the same way that faith is not a condi- 
tion of pardon. The language is: "He that believeth and 
is baptized shall be saved." Here faith and baptism are 
both of them inseparably connected together by the con- 
junction and, and both are to be done for the very same 
thing. And if faith is a condition of pardon, so is baptism ; 
for both of them are placed before pardon, and, we may 
safely say, in order to pardon. You will certainly say that 
faith is a condition of pardon; and if so, then you cannot 
deny that baptism is, for the two are inseparably joined to- 
gether in order to bring the same result, or promise. But 
you may say you can find passages where pardon is con- 
nected with faith without any mention of baptism. Then 
I will also find passages where pardon is connected with 
baptism and no faith mentioned. 

But, then, shall we put such passages against each other 
and some take one and some the other — some contend for 
salvation by faith only and some for the same blessings by 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 35 

baptism only ? We cannot do that, because in the commis- 
sion, as we have seen, both are inseparably joined together 
in order to pardon; and if, therefore, we find pardon con- 
nected with one without mention of the other, we may 
know the other is understood as being connected with it, 
and we have no right to promise pardon to either one with- 
out the other. 

The same is true in regard to repentance. You may find 
passages where salvation is connected with repentance with- 
out either faith or baptism being mentioned. But must we 
conclude that, therefore, neither of them is necessary? By 
no means, because in the commission as given by Mark we 
have seen that both faith and baptism are inseparable con- 
ditions of salvation, or pardon. And then we have one 
place in which all three are connected before pardon. On 
the day of Pentecost, Peter, in the closing part of his dis- 
course, most positively requires faith in these words: 
"Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that 
God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, 
both Lord and Christ." In requiring them to know as- 
suredly, he meant that they should be fully assured in their 
hearts — should most confidently believe that Jesus is the 
Son of God. Never was there a more positive requirement 
to believe than this ; and the command was no sooner given 
than some of them did believe, and cried out : "What shall 
we do?" Then to these believers the command is: ''Re- 
pent, and be baptized . . . for the remission of sins." 
Here, upon their faith, both repentance and baptism are 
inseparably required in order to pardon. So that in this 
passage all three of them — faith, repentance, and baptism — 
are inseparably placed before pardon, or remission of sins. 
Or, still further, by comparing Mark 16 and Acts 2, we have 
in Mark faith and baptism before pardon. In Acts 2 re- 
pentance is also put in between faith and baptism, and all 
of them before pardon. So, then, if elsewhere we find sal- 
vation connected with any one of these without mention of 
others, we may be certain that both the others are included. 
God has joined them all together before pardon, and we 
have no right to interfere with his arrangements. If we 
promise pardon to the alien sinner without any one of 
them, we will then be taking from the word of God, and will 
thereby make ourselves liable to the wrath of God. We 
prefer to let things remain as God has placed them. In 
this Bible land, with "Christian privileges and obligations," 
as you express it, all have a chance to do what God says. 
And we presume there are none in this country who have 
grown up to years of responsibility who do not know that 
the word of God requires faith, repentance, and baptism; 



36 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and unless he is mocking us, he means what he says, and, 
therefore, all these things are necessary ; and any one that 
rejects any one of them rejects the word of God and refuses 
to obey him, and, while thus refusing to obey God, has no 
promise of pardon. True faith will never spend any time 
in trying to fix up a plan to be saved on less than God says, 
but will be all the time trying to do all that God commands. 

BAPTISM, WHAT FOR? 

Brother Lipscomb: What is baptism for, and what does John 3: 5 
mean? 

The leading purpose of baptism is to bury the man dead 
through faith and repentance to the world out of himself 
and raise him in Christ Jesus. "Go ye therefore and teach 
all nations, baptizing them [eis] in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." Baptizing them 
into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy 
Spirit puts them into the enjoyment of all the blessings to 
be received in Christ, the blood of Christ, the remission of 
sins, the fellowship of God, Jesus Christ, and all the intelli- 
gences of the universe that are in fellowship with God. 
Man dies to the world and to himself ; the body of sin is put 
off, buried in baptism, and he is raised to walk in newness 
of life in Christ Jesus. (Rom. 6:3-6; Col. 3 : 10-15.) 

John 3 : 5 means to believe and be baptized, as the whole 
teaching and examples of Jesus and the apostles show. A 
child in his natural birth is not born of water. Whatever 
water is present at the birth is born of the mother just as 
the child is. The water comes forth from the womb of the 
mother just as the child does. The water is born with the 
child from the mother. Just as well say when twins are 
born that one is born of the other, because they both came 
forth together from the womb of the mother, as to say a 
child is born of the water because water comes forth from 
the womb with the child. The idea is a violation of the 
common use of words, and is a strange and ridiculous inter- 
pretation to avoid the force of a truth that is taught in 
other places if it were not here. All scholars agree that 
for fourteen centuries after Christ no man ever thought of 
applying it to anything else than baptism. 

BAPTISM, NECESSITY OF. 

Will you please show one the necessity of baptism, if, indeed, it is 
essential to salvation? I am convinced that immersion is the best 
mode; and if I could see that baptism is essential to salvation, I would 
be immersed immediately. 

God commanded through John the Baptist baptism as a 
starting point to a new life with God. Jesus submitted to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 37 

it as a duty he owed to God. God recognized him as his 
Son before the world when he submitted to it and bestowed 
on him the fullness of his Spirit. Christ himself ordained 
baptism as the act in which he would be confessed. "He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
believeth not shall be damned." The believing is para- 
mount to accepting Christ in the act of baptism as the 
Leader and the Savior. The Holy Spirit came to guide 
man into the remission of sins. He commanded those who 
believed in Christ to "repent, and be baptized every one of 
you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins." 
From that time forward every one — Jew, Samaritan, Gen- 
tile, rich and poor, the prince and the beggar — who came to 
Christ, believing on him, was required to be baptized as a 
condition of acceptance with God. Cornelius, the centu- 
rion, "a devout man, and one that feared God with all his 
house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to 
God alway," was told to be baptized as a means of his sal- 
vation. No one from that time forward was ever recog- 
nized as a child of God or in a saved state until he had be- 
lieved, repented, and had been baptized into the names of 
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

God requires it of every mortal that would come to him 
and receive of his blessing. We know of no higher, better, 
or stronger reason that any man can have for doing any- 
thing. If he cannot do it because God requires and com- 
mands it, he ought not to do it at all. Acts submitted to or 
works done in religion on any other ground are presump- 
tuous, and presumption is the highest of sins in the sight of 
God. The human family has sinned against God and has 
rebelled against his authority. God demands that every one 
should take this oath of loyalty, this expressive abnegation 
and denial of self, and this putting on Christ as his Lord 
and Master, before God will accept any service from him. 

We suspect from the tenor of this letter that our friend 
does not feel himself a sinner, lost and ruined, dependent on 
God for salvation. The tendency of the philosophy of this 
age is in the direction of the sufficiency of humanity to dis- 
cover and work out its own salvation without the guidance 
of God. If one thinks so, no service is acceptable to God. 
The weakness, sinfulness, the lost and ruined condition of 
humanity, must be realized before man can come to God in 
an acceptable frame of mind. If man was not lost, ruined, 
undone, doomed, the death of Christ was a meaningless 
farce. It takes but little knowledge of the world's past his- 
tory and present condition to see that without Christ and 
the revelation of God to man, man is lost, degraded, worse 
than brutal, tending continually downward, and that the 



38 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

knowledge of God and his word is the only influence that 
has ever lifted hirn up, elevated him, given tone and vigor 
to his moral and spiritual nature, quickened his intellect, 
and given him character as a moral and spiritual being. 

If he was and is thus dead in trespasses and sins, with- 
out the knowledge of God, and God through Christ alone 
can quicken him, he must accept Christ as his Helper and 
his Savior on Christ's own terms. And it is not whether 
immersion is the best way of being baptized, but is it what 
God has commanded? If it is, man must accept it. For 
him to do what God commands is merely to accept God's 
help on God's own terms. This he must do, or God will not 
accept him. If God refuses to give help, man must be lost. 
He may, by the influences and institutions of the religion 
of Christ, remain a respectably moral man in this world, 
while defaming the influences that lifted him up ; but when 
he passes beyond this world and all these helpful influences 
are withdrawn, he must sink down into the degradation 
and ruin prepared for the devil and his angels. Our only 
hope is to do just what God tells us, and he said: "Be bap- 
tized every one of you." 

BAPTISM, CAN MAN BE SAVED WITHOUT? 

Brother Lipscomb : Do the Scriptures say that no one can be saved 
without baptism, or is it only an inference? If an inference, are not 
all creeds founded on inferences? I have been reading your paper 
some time, and I like it very well. 

Inferences are of different degrees of certainty. A nec- 
essary inference is regarded but little, if any, short of a pos- 
itive declaration or command. Whatever is necessary to 
the attainment of an end is necessarily inferred as em- 
braced in the command. It is a necessary inference that 
he must do all these things requisite to obtain an end, be- 
cause the thing commanded cannot be done without doing 
these necessary things. We, on the other hand, infer things 
on slight unnecessary grounds. Nothing save a necessary 
inference should be regarded authoritative. While it is not 
said in the Scriptures no one can be saved without baptism, 
it is true that the only plan for saving sinners that God has 
revealed leads through baptism. And I do not know why 
the clause, "that he has revealed," should be thrown in, for 
I do not believe he has an unrevealed plan. The declaration 
of the Savior is: "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here 
the road to salvation as marked by the Savior leads through 
baptism. The fact that lack of baptism is not repeated as 
a condition of damnation has no bearing, because baptism 
has been connected with faith and is the outgrowth of it; 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 39 

and in calling up faith in the last clause, all that has been 
connected with it must be understood. 

The commission as given by Matthew is: "Go ye there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "Nei- 
ther is there salvation in any other [name] : for there is 
none other name under heaven given among men, whereby 
we must be saved." (Acts 4: 12.) This is a plain dec- 
laration that men can be saved only in the name of Christ. 
But men must enter into that name before they can be saved 
in it. This commission by Matthew says men must be 
taught, then baptized into the name of the Father, the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit. They cannot be saved without coming 
into the name of Christ. They are baptized into that name. 
Of the same force is the idea we are saved "in Christ." In 
him we find remission, salvation, redemption, and sanctifi- 
cation. It is in him these can alone be found. Then what- 
ever is necessary to an entrance into Christ is necessary to 
the attainment of salvation, redemption, sanctification, and 
all blessings found in him. Paul says: "So many of us as 
were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his 
death." (Rom. 6: 3.) Again: "Ye are all the children 
of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as 
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 
3: 26, 27.) We enter into Christ and enter his death by 
being baptized into him. We become children of God by 
faith in Christ, by being baptized into Christ, and so "put 
on Christ." Now, if baptism is essential to entrance into 
Christ, it is necessary to the enjoyment of all blessings 
found only in him. It is a necessary inference, then, that 
inasmuch as we enter Christ in baptism, baptism is a con- 
dition of the enjoyment of all blessings found in Christ. 
The Spirit said on the day of Pentecost: "Repent, and be 
baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins." Now, the remission of sins is the same 
as salvation from sin, on which future salvation depends. 
Take it "for the remission of sins" or "into the remission 
of sins," as our Baptist friends now say it ought to be trans- 
lated, and we have repentance and baptism as means of 
reaching remission of sins. All means or acts necessary to 
reach remission of sins are necessary conditions of obtain- 
ing and enjoying remission of sins. Hence, if an inference, 
it is a necessary inference and authoritative as a condition 
of the promised blessing. So, too, Ananias said to Saul: 
"Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on 
the name of the Lord." This admonition grows out of the 
two facts that baptism is a condition on which God cleanses 
from sin and baptism is a washing. Then if baptism in 



40 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

this sense washes away sins, we cannot be cleansed from 
these sins without the washing. It is a necessary inference 
here that without the washing in which God cleanses we 
cannot be cleansed from sin. 

Peter declares that Noah and his family "were saved by 
water. The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also 
now save us." Baptism saves us from our sins in the same 
manner that water saved Noah and his family from the de- 
struction of the sin-defiled world — that is, water is the me- 
dium through which in baptism we pass from a state of sin 
and condemnation into a state of acceptance and favor with 
God. If this be so, we cannot reach that state of favor and 
salvation without baptism, any more than Noah and his 
family could reach the new world without passing to it by 
means of water. If it is an inference that no one of the 
antediluvians were saved without water, it is an inference 
that no one can be saved without baptism. If an infer- 
ence at all, it is a necessary inference from so many and so 
different standpoints that it has all the force and assurance 
of a clear and distinct declaration. It only means that God 
has seen fit to pardon man's sins on condition that he be- 
lieves in Christ, our Savior, and so embodies that faith as to 
be buried out of self into Christ, the Redeemer. Baptism 
is the act in which we deny ourselves, are buried out of 
ourselves, and enter into Christ. 

This is God's order as plainly revealed as any truth of the 
Bible, and it is useless and sinful for man to try to set aside 
or avoid the plain commands of God. D. L. 

BAPTISM IN LIEU OF CIRCUMCISION. 

Brother Lipscomb: Did Christian baptism come in lieu of circum- 
cision? 

It did not. Circumcised persons were baptized, and the 
children of baptized Jews continued to be circumcised for 
a long while, and it would be no sin yet. That this is true 
you may see from the fact that Jewish Christians demanded 
Gentile Christians should be circumcised. If they had not 
circumcised their own children, they could not have asked 
it of the Gentiles. 

BAPTISM, THE, OF 1 COR. 12: 13. 

What baptism is spoken of in 1 Cor. 12: 13? 

The passage referred to is this: "For by one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gen- 
tiles." The baptism here spoken of is the baptism that puts 
people into Christ; for when we are in the body of Christ, 
which is the church, we are in Christ. The baptism that 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 41 

puts us into Christ is water baptism. Paul says: "Know 
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his death?" Here the information is 
definite that we are baptized into Christ. And in the last 
of Matthew the commission of Christ to his apostles, as 
given in the late Revision of the New Testament, is as fol- 
lows: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the na- 
tions, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of 
the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The new rendering, into 
the name, is exactly literal, and, therefore, correct. This 
shows that the baptism performed by the apostles is the 
one that puts people into Christ, and is necessarily water 
baptism, for men could not perform a baptism of the Holy 
Spirit. And the very same baptism is spoken of in 1 Cor. 
12, for it also puts its subjects into Christ. Hence the 
meaning of the passage is: By (according to the teaching 
of) one Spirit people are baptized into one body. The 
Spirit, through the truth, teaches us to believe the gospel, 
to repent, and to be baptized into Christ. It is by the teach- 
ing of the Spirit that we do everything in religion. 

BAPTISM, IS IT SPRINKLING? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I have had the following scrip- 
ture quoted to me to prove sprinkling: "And so shall he sprinkle 
many nations." (Isa. 53: 15.) "Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all 
your idols, will I cleanse you." (Ezek. 36: 25.) Now, what I want 
to know is this: Is the same Greek word used in these passages that 
is in our Savior's commission? Please give the Greek words used in 
both places. Are the Greek words that are used (in either the Old 
or the New Testament) for sprinkle or pour ever used in the New 
Testament for baptize? 

The prophecies of Isaiah and Ezekiel, as the whole of the 
Old Testament, were written in Hebrew, not Greek. The 
Hebrew Scriptures were, however, translated into the 
Greek before the days of the Savior. It was translated by 
seventy chosen translators, and is called the "Septuagint," 
which means seventy. It is supposed to have been trans- 
lated in the third century before Christ ; was in general use 
among the Jews in Greece. It was quoted by the Savior 
and the apostles, and to this extent received their indorse- 
ment. 

The word used in the Hebrew is no kin to the Hebrew 
word for baptize. The word by which it is translated into 
Greek has no kinship or likeness to the word translated 
baptize. The word by which it is translated into Greek is 
thaumazo, which neither means to baptize nor sprinkle, 
but to astonish or overpower with wonder and fear. This 
is the meaning of the word. Christ's sufferings had been 



42 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

foretold, the marring of his person ; and so shall he over- 
come with wonder and astonishment many nations. How 
the word sprinkle ever got into the sentence would be hard 
to tell. The word in the Hebrew and the Greek by which 
it is translated means to overcome with wonder. The 
words used for sprinkle and pour in both the Old and New 
Testament are entirely different words from those used for 
baptize in the New Testament. The word translated dip 
in the Old Testament, as in the dipping of Naaman, the dip- 
ping the finger in blood, etc., is the word used for baptize 
in the New Testament. The word cheo means pour; the 
word rantizo, sprinkle; and the word baptizo, dip, plunge, 
or baptize. There is nothing in common between the dif- 
ferent words. The sentence from Ezekiel is evidently an 
allusion to the sprinkling of the water of purification under 
the Mosaic law. It would be a strange thing to illustrate 
a moral purification by an allusion to something not yet es- 
tablished and totally unknown. This would be an abuse of 
even a prophetic enigma. D. L. 

BAPTISM, BECAUSE OF REMISSION. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is baptism for the remission of sins to one 
who has been baptized because of the remission of sins? 

I do not think any one was ever baptized because his sins 
were remitted. They may have believed their sins were 
remitted before they were baptized, but the remission of 
sins was not the moving cause. There is nothing in re- 
mission of sins as a motive to prompt one to be baptized. 
They may have thought, inasmuch as God had forgiven 
their sins, they ought to obey his command to be baptized ; 
but in that case the desire to obey God is the moving cause. 
When a man is baptized to obey God, he is led by a proper 
motive; and I believe when he does this to obey him, God 
will forgive his sins, whether he knows the act in which God 
forgives or not. Man cannot be led by a holier or more 
acceptable motive than the desire to obey God and so "ful- 
fill all righteousness." It is a dangerous thing to require 
more than God requires. 

BAPTISM, HOLY GHOST. 

Brother Seivell: I would like for you to write something on Matt. 
3: 11: "He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." 
There is a "Holiness" woman preacher holding a meeting here that 
says that God pours out the Holy Ghost on them like he did on the 
apostles. They say the apostles made a mistake when they baptized 
in water. Some of our brethren seem to fall in with them and take a 
great hand with them. They say John baptized in water; but when 
his mission ceased, they say they were to be baptized "with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 43 

This was said of Christ, and had reference to the miracu- 
lous inspiring power of the Holy Spirit that was to take 
place at the introduction of Christianity, which was ful- 
filled on the day of Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. 
The apostles and the people at the house of Cornelius are 
the only ones ever baptized in the Holy Spirit, so far as the 
New Testament records. Others received gifts of the 
Spirit, but these are never called a "baptism of the Spirit." 
None have been thus baptized in the Holy Spirit since that, 
so far as anybody knows. The baptism of fire spoken of in 
the passage referred to was not connected with, nor was it 
any part of, the baptism of the Holy Spirit, but means the 
unquenchable fire of eternal ruin, as is plainly shown in 
verse 12, when all the wicked shall be cast off into eternal 
punishment. For any one to claim that the Spirit is poured 
out on any one now as it was on the day of Pentecost only 
shows to what extremes error will lead people. To say the 
apostles made a mistake in baptizing people in water is to 
destroy, to set aside, the Holy Spirit and his teaching in the 
whole New Testament ; for the Holy Spirit guided the apos- 
tles in teaching people to be baptized in water. Such a 
claim is based purely upon error, upon the false claim that 
any one receives any sort of spiritual endowment now. It 
proves itself false by setting the word of God through the 
apostles at naught. 

BAPTISM, WITH SPIRIT AND FIRE. 

In Matt. 3: 11 we find the following: "I indeed baptize you with 
water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than 
I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost, and with fire." Does John mean that Christ would bap- 
tize them with two things or one — viz., the Holy Ghost under the 
similitude of fire? Did he mean that they should be baptized with the 
Holy Ghost and fire, personally or nationally? 

He means he would baptize some of them with the Holy 
Spirit, the others with fire. The next sentence explains 
this fully : "And will gather his wheat into the garner ; but 
he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." There 
were the two classes — one to be baptized with the Holy 
Spirit and gathered into the garner of God, the other to be 
baptized with fire, burned up with unquenchable fire. 

D. L. 

There are two baptisms spoken of in Matt. 3: 11. One 
is the baptism of the Spirit, the other of fire. John was 
speaking to a mixed multitude, and we are not to conclude 
that the same would receive both. The apostles on Pente- 
cost and the household of Cornelius were baptized in the 
Holy Spirit. All the wicked will be baptized in unquench- 



44 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

able fire in eternity. The passage in Peter regarding the 
filth of the flesh is evidently an allusion to the Jewish wash- 
ings which were for cleansing the filth of the flesh. He 
had just declared, "The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us," etc. ; and then, lest his Jewish breth- 
ren should think baptism was for cleansing of the flesh 
also, he put in the explanation, "not the putting away of the 
filth of the flesh" — that is, not a mere fleshly washing, but 
an institution to affect the mind or conscience. The an- 
swer is, seeking of a good conscience. We have a clear 
conscience when we know we have obeyed God. E. G. S. 

BAPTISM THAT PUTS MEN INTO CHRIST. 

1. How is it that man can baptize man into Christ? 

2. Is the putting on of Christ in baptism water baptism? 

These questions were handed us by a brother, with the 
request that we should answer through the Gospel Advo- 
cate. To both of them we answer unhesitatingly: Yes. 
In Rom. 6 and Gal. 3 we are told plainly by Paul that we are 
baptized into Christ. These passages show that by baptism 
we enter into Christ. Then in the last of Matthew we have 
Jesus commanding the apostles: "Go ye therefore, and 
teach all nations, baptizing them in [eis, into] the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." In 
this passage the word rendered in, where he says, "baptiz- 
ing them in the name," etc., is the same Greek word that 
is rendered into in Rom. 6 and Gal. 3; and as it has the 
same construction in the last of Matthew, it should be ren- 
dered the same way, and then we would have : "Go ye there- 
fore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The only baptism men 
could perform was water baptism. The baptism of the 
Holy Spirit was always a promise, never a command; and 
Christ himself was the administrator, as was said by John 
when he said of Christ: "He shall baptize you with the 
Holy Ghost, and with fire." Christ, then, and not men, 
was to baptize in the Holy Spirit. This baptism was not 
said to be into any name, but the baptism the apostles were 
to perform was to be into the name of Christ. Therefore 
the baptism which men were to administer to men was wa- 
ter baptism, and this is the baptism that was to go to all 
nations and to continue through all time. We have but 
two instances of the baptism of the Holy Spirit that are 
called such in the New Testament, and these were the apos- 
tles on the day of Pentecost and the Gentiles at the house of 
Cornelius ; and on both these occasions the Spirit was poured 
out miraculously from heaven, and the subjects of it were 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 45 

miraculously endowed and enabled to speak at once in other 
tongues, in other languages, that they had never learned; 
and as we have no account of any other occasions like these 
two, we put them down as the only recorded cases of a bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit. We have nothing of the sort now 
at all. No one is miraculously endowed now; no one now 
can speak in languages he has never learned. And, besides, 
at the house of Cornelius the very persons that were bap- 
tized in the Spirit had to be immediately baptized in water ; 
for after the Spirit had fallen upon them, after they were 
baptized in it, Peter said : "Can any man forbid water, that 
these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy 
Ghost as well as we?" 

This baptism in water is the baptism that men were to 
administer, and, as we have already seen, the baptism that 
was to put people into Christ. Spiritual baptism only oc- 
curred on two occasions, and on one of these — Pentecost — 
those who received it were already the disciples of Christ, 
and it could not have put them into Christ; they were his 
apostles already. On the other occasion they were imme- 
diately baptized in water, and in this way entered into 
Christ, and not by spiritual baptism. So it is plain that no 
one ever entered into Christ by spiritual baptism. And, 
besides, if it requires the baptism of the Holy Spirit to put 
men into Christ, it follows that none have entered into him 
since the house of Cornelius, as there has never been an 
event like that since. But when we take it that water bap- 
tism puts man into Christ and that it extends to all nations 
and through all time, all difficulties are at once out of the 
way. Every time a proper subject is baptized in water he 
is also baptized into Christ ; but before any one can be bap- 
tized into Christ he must be prepared for it by an earnest 
faith which turns the heart to God and by an earnest re- 
pentance which turns the life to him. When these steps 
have been taken, the individual is ready, upon the confession 
of the name of Christ, to be baptized into him, and thus 
put him on in this divine ordinance. This kind of baptism 
is in the reach of all who will receive the gospel, while the 
baptism of the Spirit is not in the reach of any since apos- 
tolic times. E. G. S. 

BAPTISM, MUST ONE KNOW IT IS FOR REMISSION 
BEFORE BEING BAPTIZED? 

Brother Lipscomb : There has been much discussion concerning the 
person understanding baptism is for remission of sins. Suppose a 
Baptist seeks union with a church of Christ, what steps ought to be 
pursued toward him? 



46 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The person's own conscience and consciousness under the 
teachings of the Bible must decide the question. For 
churches or other persons to decide the question of accepta- 
ble obedience to God is presumptuous. A service based on 
the judgment or requirements of others, persons or 
churches, is not acceptable to God. A baptism submitted 
to because some church or some other person thinks he 
ought to is not a whit better than infant baptism. Such a 
baptism is based upon the faith of another. Infant baptism 
rests on the faith of another, and is as good, as acceptable 
to God, as any baptism resting upon the faith of any other 
person than the one baptized. While this is true, it is 
proper and right to teach every one just what the Scrip- 
tures teach on the subject of baptism — who should be bap- 
tized, its office in the plan of salvation, the motives that 
should lead to it, and the blessings to which it brings us. 
When this is done, the Christian has done all he can do, and 
it is then left to the consciousness of the person baptized as 
to whether he has been led by a scriptural motive, and, when 
thus instructed, as to whether he has the response of a good 
conscience toward God. If he has these when thus taught, 
then none can object. In teaching the office of baptism and 
the blessings secured, it does violence to the word of God to 
select one out of a number of blessings to which baptism 
brings the person and say this one must have been under- 
stood and have led to baptism, while ignoring all others. 
We find that Christ was baptized to fullfill all righteous- 
ness, or to submit to God's whole law for making persons 
righteous. This was to honor and obey God, the highest 
and most acceptable motive. In the great commission under 
which the apostles were sent to preach they were com- 
manded to baptize "them in the name of the Father, and of 
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." "Being baptized into 
Christ" is more frequently repeated than any other one end 
of baptism. Then on Pentecost they were commanded : 
"Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of 
Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here they are informed that 
repentance and baptism would bring them to the remission 
of sins, and then they would receive the gift of the Holy 
Spirit. Ananias told Saul: "Arise, and be baptized, and 
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." 
Rom. 6 : 3-5 teaches that we are buried with him by baptism 
into death and that we arise to walk in newness of life. 
Gal. 3 : 26, 27 teaches that we become sons of God by faith 
in Jesus Christ ; "for as many of you as have been baptized 
into Christ have put on Christ." Col. 2: 11, 12 tells us 
that in baptism we put off "the body of the sins of the flesh 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 47 

by the circumcision of Christ," by being buried with Christ 
in baptism. 1 Pet. 3 : 20 tells us eight souls were saved in 
the ark by water. 'The like figure whereunto even baptism 
doth also now save us, (not the putting away of the filth of 
the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) 
by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." Now, these give a 
multiplicity of shades of blessings promised in baptism, in- 
dicating a variety of shades of motives to lead men to bap- 
tism, all embraced in the one great desire to honor God and 
do what he commands, and so enter into Christ. When 
this instruction is given of what the Holy Spirit teaches on 
baptism, all that can be done by others is done, and the man 
then must act on his consciousness as to whether he has 
been led by one or more of these scriptural ends of baptism 
to submit to it ; and this decision of the person determines 
his duty in the premises. This is true of every person who 
has been baptized. To single one motive or blessing and 
make the understanding of this the one necessary condi- 
tion of remission, to the neglect of others, is on a par with 
selecting faith as the one condition of salvation, ignoring 
all others. Indeed, it is worse, because faith is the great 
leading principle of all obedience, and more fully embraces 
all the duties man owes to God, and obligates to air acts of 
obedience, than any other requirement of man. So if any 
one act alone justified, it would be faith. But to take one 
promise that involves what God obligates himself to do and 
make the understanding of it the sole condition of accepta- 
ble baptism, ignoring other ends and promises embodying 
man's duty to God, is to do violence to the word of God and 
become a factionist. I repeat that a baptism submitted to 
because some preacher or church thinks you ought to be 
baptized is not a whit better than infant baptism performed 
because the parents think it right. To get every one to 
have a faith of his own, and to act upon it, is the end to be 
sought. 

BAPTISM, WHY NOT IT AND THE LORD'S SUPPER 
NAILED TO THE CROSS? 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate 
why baptism and the Lord's Supper were not done away, nailed to the 
cross, when Christ was crucified; also the meaning of spiritual bap- 
tism. There is a sect here teaching that this is all done away with, 
nailed to the cross, and that spiritual baptism is the only baptism; 
that no other has been taught since Christ was crucified. 

The reason baptism and the Lord's Supper were not taken 
out of the way and nailed to the cross is, they constituted 
no part of the law of Moses that was taken out of the way 
and nailed to the cross. While baptism was instituted by 



48 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

John, it was not given as the law of Christ to his church 
until after he was crucified. Just before he ascended to 
the throne of God, and in his last message to his disciples, 
after he had been crucified and raised from the dead, he 
told them: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost : teaching them to observe all things what- 
soever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you al- 
way, even unto the end of the world." The disciples were 
commanded to teach and baptize all nations after Jesus 
had come down from the cross. He could not nail an insti- 
tution to the cross commanded after he had died on the 
cross. The Lord's Supper was observed before the cruci- 
fixion, but it was done to commemorate his death on the 
cross. He could not have nailed to the cross and have 
taken out of the way an institution ordained to commemo- 
rate the cross. They both belong to the new institution 
which belonged after the cross and must continue until 
Jesus comes again. Paul (1 Cor. 11), long after the death 
and ascension of Christ, wrote to the Corinthians : "As often 
as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the 
Lord's death till he come." This is not to cease until he 
comes again. So your sect is teaching contrary to Jesus 
and Paul. The baptism of the Holy Spirit was the over- 
whelming of the Spirit that came upon the disciples at Pen- 
tecost and again at the house of Cornelius. After the dis- 
ciples had been with Jesus for three years as his followers, 
after they had wrought miracles and done works in his 
name, just before he left them he told them: 'Ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence." They 
had been his followers, had been preaching under his di- 
rection, had cast out devils, and done many wonderful 
works in his name. They were certainly his children; yet 
they had not been baptized with the Holy Spirit, but are told 
they shall be baptized "not many days hence." They tar- 
ried at Jerusalem about ten days ; then the Holy Spirit came 
from heaven, and they "began to speak with other tongues, 
as the Spirit gave them utterance." This was the baptism 
of the Holy Spirit. At the house of Cornelius (Acts 10: 
44), "while Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost 
fell on all them which heard the word." "They heard them 
speak with tongues, and magnify God." These had been 
baptized with the Holy Spirit. The result was, they could 
speak with tongues they had never learned. 

Now, these are the only examples called "baptism of the 
Spirit" in the Bible. They both produced the same fruits. 
A man that claims to be baptized with the Spirit now ought 
to present the same fruit, or be pronounced a false pre- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 49 

tender. In Acts 10, after they had been blessed with the 
Spirit, Peter says : "Can any man forbid water, that these 
should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost 
as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in 
the name of the Lord." The baptism Peter commanded 
was with water ; it was long after the cross. 

BAPTISM, HOW BAPTISTS BAPTIZE. 

Brother Sewell: Do Baptists baptize individuals into the Baptist 
Church or into the church of Christ? If into the church of Christ, 
how do they get into the Baptist Church? If into the Baptist Church, 
how must one proceed to come from the Baptist Church into the 
church of Christ? 

I do not read one word about any Baptist Church in the 
New Testament, and, therefore, not a word about any one 
ever having been baptized into a Baptist Church. Hence, I 
shall not attempt to answer how such an unscriptural thing 
can be done, except to say that no such thing can be done 
by divine authority by any one. Nor do I read of any one 
ever having been baptized into the church of Christ. I do 
read of people being baptized into Christ and "into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." 
I read also, plainly, that Paul and the Romans "were bap- 
tized into Christ." (Rom. 6: 3.) Then, again, I read 
where Christ said, when speaking of himself as the Son of 
God : "Upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16: 18.) I 
learn also that the Greek word ekklesia, which is rendered 
church, means literally the "called-out ones." Therefore 
the word church means the people that obey the gospel and 
are thus called out of the world into Christ. The word 
church, therefore, does not mean a denomination, but it 
means the Lord's people on earth; and these make up the 
spiritual body of Christ, but in no modern sense of that 
word a denomination. The whole idea of a Baptist Church, 
and that such a church is a denomination, is purely human. 
There is nothing of that sort one single time named in the 
New Testament. Study the word church as given in the 
New Testament more closely, and you will not trouble your- 
self nor others about people being baptized into the Bap- 
tist Church. The whole idea is a human invention not 
once named in all the oracles of God. The matter of being 
baptized into Christ, and that whenever this is done they 
are the Lord's people, is plainly revealed, but not in any 
sense as a Baptist denomination. I have been preaching 
for about sixty-two years, and have never had any one to 
come forward to unite with the church of Christ that said 
he had been baptized into the Baptist Church. If such a 



50 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

one ever does, I will try to teach and treat him as the word 
of God directs. But I am not looking for any such to come 
under that sort of invitation. That sort of folks are better 
satisfied where they are, and they will stay there till they 
learn "the way of the Lord more perfectly." I am not set 
for the defense of the Baptist Church nor any of its errors. 
So when you hear that I have received or proposed to re- 
ceive one who says he was baptized into the Baptist Church, 
then ask me how or upon what authority I did it. But I 
have found a number of people that said that when they 
were baptized they did it in submission to the will of God, 
and they were encouraged to at once take their stand among 
those who are simply Christians and to live the Christian 
life as the word of God directs. So I am in no dilemma 
in regard to the questions you ask. But those that require 
all those who have been baptized to do God's will to be bap- 
tized again, "having it in view that baptism is for the re- 
mission of sins," are the ones that are in the ditch, there 
being no authority in the word of God for any such pro- 
cedure. There is but one way to get into the church of 
Christ, and that is by a humble obedience to the gospel of 
Christ. But I am under no obligation to try to tell how to 
get into the Baptist Church, as no such church is revealed 
in the word of God. 

BAPTISTERY, IS IT WRONG TO HAVE A? 

Brother Sewell: We have a baptistery in the church here. Some 
of the brethren think it wrong. Now, please give us all the scriptures 
you can on the subject. If it is wrong to use it, we should not do so. 

We know of no scriptural reason why any one should ob- 
ject to having water in a pool in a meetinghouse to baptize 
people in. Water is the element in which people were bap- 
tized in New Testament times. The first baptizing ever 
done by divine authority was done in the river Jordan by 
John, the forerunner of Christ, and he baptized in Jordan 
because the river Jordan was convenient and there was 
plenty of water in it anywhere they might strike it. It 
was not because the water of the Jordan was more sacred 
than other water, but because it was convenient and plenty 
of it. The scriptural order was to baptize, immerse, people 
in water. There is no intimation in the word of God that 
people must be baptized in a river or any sort of a stream 
of water, but simply in water. It might be asked : Why do 
people build meetinghouses to meet in? Why not meet in 
a grove or a tent or in private houses as well? God does 
not command Christians to build meetinghouses, but he 
does require them to meet to break bread, to do his will, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 51 

to worship him ; and where there are a number of members 
near enough to meet together in one place, it is certainly 
more convenient to have a fixed place, or house, to meet in ; 
and they build meetinghouses for that purpose, to have al- 
ways a fixed and convenient place to meet, so that every 
member will always know where to go to meet the others. 
The Lord requires that people must be baptized in water, 
and it is left with them to find or to arrange a place for that 
purpose. If they can arrange to have water in a pool in the 
meetinghouse more conveniently than to go to a stream of 
water, that is just as scriptural as to go to a creek or river. 
Christians should be very careful not to make laws where 
God has made none and then try to force others to accept 
and comply with their law. If those who oppose a pool 
or baptistery to baptize people in will find where God has 
forbidden a pool to baptize in, then they may with great 
propriety oppose the pool. But the trouble is, there is no 
such passage to be found. Hence those that oppose the 
pool are simply trying to force a human opinion upon oth- 
ers that the word of God does not even mention. When 
people are immersed in water in a pool, it is just as scrip- 
tural as if they were to be immersed in the river Jordan. 

BAPTISTS, HOW RECEIVE THEM. 

Brother Sewell: In a recent meeting held by the Missionary Bap- 
tists of New Decatur there were quite a number added to that de- 
nomination. All of them confessed that they believed that God had 
pardoned their sins. In keeping with this confession, the preacher 
stated as he baptized them that they had been saved and that he was 
to baptize them because they were saved, and not in order to save 
them or that they might be saved. If you were holding a meeting 
next year for us and some of those persons should come forward and 
tell you that they had been baptized and were satisfied, what course 
would you pursue? 

It seems impossible to impress upon the brethren what 
the real issue is on the above-named subject. They cer- 
tainly know that I have never advocated the power of any 
false theory of conversion to save any one. I have never 
in my life even intimated that God will recognize any such 
system of error as conversion by the gospel of Christ as 
written in the New Testament. The brethren ought to 
know that converts made as the above were, and who still 
understand it that way, never propose to unite with disci- 
ples of Christ on that sort of conversion while they hold 
to any such errors as those named above, nor could they 
possibly be persuaded to unite with those who are simply 
Christians and who live simply as the word of God teaches. 
There are very few men living to-day that have larger ex- 
perience in evangelistic work than I have, and yet I have 



52 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

never had a single application from any one on the sort 
of conversion presented above as having been made by the 
Baptists. I always showed the difference between the gos- 
pel as written in the New Testament and such errors as 
the above, and not one person out of all the number that 
have ever proposed union with Christians under my preach- 
ing has ever proposed union upon such conversion as is 
named above. Therefore I never received a single one upon 
any such claim. Hence brethren are opposing me and my 
teaching upon claims that no one ever made to me in all my 
life. Besides, I have never intimated in any way that such 
errors ever will, ever have, or ever can save one single 
soul. If I had even one time expressed such an absurdity, 
I would not be surprised at brethren running it on me. 
But I have often found persons coming forward at my in- 
vitations to unite with the brethren at that place on the 
Bible; and if I had not already been informed as to how 
they stood, I would ask them if they wished to be baptized ; 
and if they said no, that they had been baptized, immersed, 
then I would ask them if, when they were baptized, they did 
it as a matter of submission to the will and requirements 
of God; and if they said they did, that was an end to it, 
and they were received by that congregation as Christians 
to live with Christians as the word of God directs. But 
if one should make the claim of conversion as those Baptists 
put it of whom you speak in the above, that he was saved 
before baptism and then baptized because he was already 
saved, then I would teach him the Lord's will more per- 
fectly. But I have never had one such case to present it- 
self; and, brethren, if such a case ever comes to me, I will 
try to dispose of it as the word of the Lord directs, and 
will certainly tell you just what I do with it, so you will 
not have to guess at what I do. But the sort of persons 
that come to unite with us on the Bible have already learned 
what we teach as to faith, repentance, and baptism as con- 
ditions of pardon, and had somehow learned before they 
were baptized that it was required by God that they should 
do that and did it to do his will ; and such as these are about 
the only kind that ever want to unite with Christians on 
the Bible as the only rule of faith and practice. Now, 
when the rebaptists require such as these to be baptized 
again, they are practicing rebaptism without the shadow 
of a doubt; for such as these have already obeyed the gos- 
pel, have done the things the gospel requires people to do, 
and did them because they were anxious to do God's will. 
Now, these are the characters that no man on earth has 
any divine right to require to be baptized again. They 
have already done just what the gospel of Christ requires 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 53 

people to do to be saved, and they did it because they un- 
derstood God required it of them. A man that would re- 
quire such as these to be baptized again needs to be taught 
the first principles of the oracles of God. 

We have written this not only as an answer to the above, 
but that all may see the real issue between us and the re- 
baptists. 

BAPTISTS, JOINING, TO BE WITH HIS WIFE. 

A certain brother has a Baptist wife. In order to be in the church 
with his wife, he proposes to join the Baptist Church. In order to get 
into this sectarian denomination, it will be necessary for him to sub- 
mit to baptism at the hands of a Baptist preacher. This he will do, 
not because he believes the Lord has commanded it, but in order that 
he may enjoy church fellowship with his wife. Please point out the 
sin committed in this case. 

If that be a true statement of the case, he will forsake 
God to follow and obey his wife. He will be baptized pro- 
fessedly in the name of the Lord. But he cannot do things 
to please men in the name of the Lord. It is not and cannot 
be in his name if he believes he has been baptized in the 
name of the Lord, because a man cannot twice be bap- 
tized in his name. If the preacher knows the facts when 
he holds up his hands before God and says, "I baptize you 
in the name of Jesus Christ/' he will tell a falsehood in the 
name of Christ, the Lord. Whether the preacher knows it 
or not, the man baptized does, and he will be guilty of going 
through a farce to please his wife. Claiming it is in the 
name of the Lord will cause the preacher to tell a lie in the 
name of the Lord and will incur all the guilt of such a lie 
in the name of the Lord. It is a fearful thing to be doing 
things God has not commanded in his name, and so trifling 
with his holy name and sacred appointments. 

BAPTIZE, WHO MAY. 

We have in our congregation a difference among us as to whether 
a person whom we will term a "private member" has the right to ad- 
minister baptism or not. Please point out the scriptures for or 
against it, and oblige a weak congregation. 

Very little is said in the Scriptures about who did the 
baptizing. Paul said he did but little at Corinth, and the 
presumption is he did but little at any time. His mission 
was to preach the gospel, not to baptize. This would indi- 
cate that baptizing was not necessarily to be performed by 
those who preach it. Saul is said to have been baptized by 
a "certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias." The 
church at Jerusalem "were scattered abroad," "and went 
everywhere preaching the word." The presumption is they 



54 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

baptized. I think it clear that no persons were specifi- 
cally commanded to baptize. I think a baptism performed 
by any disciple, if the subject is right, would be accepted 
by God. Yet, under the general provisions that every- 
thing shall be done decently and in order, it is proper that a 
congregation should have some one whose business it is to 
do this — the elders or deacons — as a guarantee that it be 
done in an orderly and becoming manner and that no re- 
proach be brought on the service. 

BAPTIZED, NOT BEING, WAS HE LOST? 

A man has genuine faith, has repented of his sins, has confessed 
Christ before men, and, in good faith, was preparing to go to the wa- 
ter to be baptized, but was stricken with apoplexy and died before he 
could be baptized. Will you give us your views on the question? 

Regarding the supposition above made by the Baptist 
preacher, we have never heard of a case like it, and we do 
not regard it as a reasonable supposition. We would much 
sooner believe the Lord would watch over and spare such 
a one, and allow him to carry out his honest purpose to obey 
him in baptism, than to suppose he would let him die during 
his preparation to submit to that ordinance. But, again, 
if such a case should occur, does that authorize any one to 
promise salvation to him? Has God ever promised salva- 
tion to such? Unless we can find some promise to such or 
some example of salvation under similar circumstances, I 
do not see that any one has the right to promise or to expect 
pardon in such cases. We must judge of what God will do 
by what he says, and not by what we think he ought to do. 
We have never known of God's making any change in the 
laws of nature to save innocent, well-meaning people from 
death. A man in this State a few years ago was suffering 
from chills, and, in the innocence and earnestness of his 
heart, took a dose of medicine, believing it to be quinine. 
But it turned out to be morphine, and he died in spite of all 
that could be done. The will and purpose in that case did 
not answer for the deed. The purpose, the intention, was 
to take quinine; but that did not change the effect of the 
morphine. Nor can we know that the intention in things 
spiritual will be taken for the deed, since God has not told 
us that it will. We know that if we do what God says, we 
are safe; and that is as far as we can give any assurance. 
Such questions are always asked to throw difficulties in the 
way of enforcing the Lord's word. If we say that such 
will be saved, then that admits pardon on less than God has 
promised it; and if a sinner can be saved one step short, 
why not under some circumstances save one two steps short, 
or three, and so on? No good reason can be assigned why 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 55 

not, and in this way men can get rid of all the conditions of 
pardon as given in the word of God. The Baptists claim 
pardon to all before baptism, and that was the point he 
was seeking to establish by the above question. He can 
just as easily and upon the same principle cut off either 
faith or repentance, or both, just as pedobaptists do when 
they sprinkle babies, and at the same time pray the Lord to 
accept and save them. Any intimation to the world that 
sinners can under any circumstances be saved without do- 
ing all the will of God will cause some to neglect parts of 
the law, even when they have all opportunities to comply 
with the whole, and thereby imperil the souls of men. No ; 
we certainly have no right to promise or intimate salvation 
to any one a single step short of what the Lord has prom- 
ised in his word. Eternity alone can develop the mischief 
the denominations are doing in promising sinners the re- 
mission of their sins short of baptism, and also those of our 
own brethren who are claiming the salvation of the pious 
unimmersed. 

When Jesus says, "Except a man be born of water and 
of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," 
who has the right to step in between the Savior and the 
sinner and say they can? And when Jesus says, "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved," who now has the 
right to say that some pious men and women will be saved 
without baptism? All such sayings are at variance with 
the words and promises of Him who spake as never man 
spake. There is no safety, no power to save outside of the 
word of God. Let us, then, do and teach the word in all 
things, and all will be well with us. E. G. S. 

BAPTIZING "IN" THE NAME AND "INTO" THE NAME. 

In Matt. 28 : 19 they were to baptize in the name of the Father and 
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. In Acts 2: 38 they were baptized 
in the name of Jesus Christ. Why did they not baptize in the three 
names? 

There is a difference between baptizing in the name and 
baptizing into the name. Yet our Common Version does 
not always make the distinction. In the commission it 
should be baptizing into the name of the Father and the 
Son and the Holy Spirit. This was to pass them into Fa- 
ther, Son, and Holy Spirit. In the name means by the au- 
thority^ of. In the name of Christ means by the authority 
of Christ. He said to his apostles : "Hitherto have ye asked 
nothing in my name." He tells them that henceforward 
"whatsoever ye shall shall ask the Father in my name, he 
will give it you." Paul said to the Colossians: "Whatso- 



56 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ever ye do in word or deed, do it all in the name [by the 
authority] of the Lord Jesus." That is, we must do noth- 
ing except what he has authorized us to do. The Revision 
makes these distinctions. Baptized into Christ is some- 
times used; but it refers to the baptism into the name of 
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. We are also com- 
manded to be baptized upon the name of Christ when 
properly translated. This means we must rely upon Christ, 
into whose name we enter and by whose authority we act. 

BAPTIZED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT, WERE THE "ONE 
HUNDRED TWENTY?" 

Brother Lipscomb: As our Bible class differs on some scriptures 
found in Acts 2, I write this query, hoping you will give us some light. 
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with 
one accord in one place." Does the word they in this verse refer to 
the hundred and twenty or the twelve apostles only? "And they were 
all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, 
as the Spirit gave them utterance." Now, who was filled with the 
Holy Ghost — the hundred and twenty or the twelve only? "And there 
were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation 
under heaven." The trouble in this verse is in the words Jews, devout 
men. Some of the class think these words teach that devout Jews 
were present only; others think it should read Jews and devout men. 

We have never heard it called in question that the whole 
one hundred and twenty were present. If the hundred and 
twenty were present the days preceding Pentecost, when 
Matthias was chosen in lieu of Judas, certainly there were 
additional reasons why all should be present on Pentecost. 

There will always be a difference in opinion as to whether 
more than the apostles received the gift of the Spirit on 
that day. We think likely the tongues like as of fire sat 
upon each of the apostles, but that all in the room received 
this outpouring of the Spirit, but in different degrees. 
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. The 
apostles received the greatest measure of it. But others 
were doubtless indued with the gifts of the Spirit in a less 
measure than the apostles. Our reason for the supposi- 
tion that all present received a measure of the Spirit is, 
Peter says this is the fulfillment of the prophecy of Joel: 
"I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh : and your sons 
and your daughters shall prophesy/' If this prophecy was 
fulfilled in all its parts, the sons and the daughters proph- 
esied. They were endowed with gifts prophetic afterwards. 
We know of no reason why the lesser gifts bestowed for 
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, 
for the edifying of the body of Christ, until they come to 
the stature of the measure of the fullness of Christ, should 
not be given on this first outpouring of the Spirit. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 57 

We find some from this time on exercising spiritual gifts. 
We are constrained to believe that none on that day received 
the apostolic measure of the Spirit, because then all would 
have been apostles. Yet none exhibited the fullness of 
apostolic powers, save the apostles. 

The Jews were the devout persons present. None but 
Jews or Jewish proselytes attended the Pentecostal feast at 
Jerusalem. The Jews had been scattered among all na- 
tions by the wars that drove them from Judea, but the de- 
vout ones came back at the appointed times to worship. 
It was undoubtedly Jews dwelling in the different coun- 
tries enumerated. (Acts 2: 9.) The proselytes are here 
mentioned as distinct from the Jews. The eunuch was a 
Jew of this character. D. L. 

BELIEVING "INTO" CHRIST. 

Does the New Testament teach that men believe into Christ? If 
you answer, "Yes," then please harmonize it with our teaching that it 
takes both faith and baptism to put a person into Christ. If men be- 
lieve into Christ, did all (even among us) learn this design of faith 
before they were baptized? For some brethren teach that a person 
must know all the designs of a command before he can obey the com- 
mand. Then have these brethren (perhaps thousands) who have not 
learned the design of faith obeyed the command to believe? 

The word believe is connected with Christ in Greek by 
the same word (eis) with which baptism, is connected with 
him. We are said to believe eis Christ and to be baptized 
eis Christ. Eis properly marks the relationship of each act 
to Christ. And yet no translator ever translated the words 
the same in the two connections. The reason is, eis, fol- 
lowing a verb of action or motion, denotes that the subject 
of the verb changes its relationship to the object of it. 
Kuhner's Greek Grammar says : "It [eis] is used of motion 
into the interior of an object, up to, into the immediate pres- 
ence of; in general, to denote the reaching a definite limit." 
This is its meaning connected with a verb of motion. Then 
it says it is used "of a mental aim, object, or purpose." 
Believing comes under the head of a mental or spiritual act, 
and eis in this connection points to the mental aim, object, 
or purpose. It indicates only a mental or emotional change 
toward the object. Baptism is a bodily act, embraces mind, 
soul, and body, and indicates a change of relation or posi- 
tion of the whole man toward the object, and reaches up to a 
definite limit. 

To believe eis Christ is to direct the mental and spiritual 
faculties to Christ — is to trust him. To be baptized eis 
Christ is an action of the whole man with reference to 
Christ, and changes his position from without Christ to 



58 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

within Christ. Believing eis Christ directs the mind and 
spirit to Christ as the object of confidence and trust. Bap- 
tism eis Christ carries the man by the act performed into 
Christ, where alone remission of sins is found. 

Or we may put it in this way: Faith, as distinct from 
baptism or acts of obedience, affects only the heart ; through 
the mind it reaches and changes the emotions toward the 
object of faith. Believing directs the confidence, the trust, 
the emotions, that part of the man affected by the simple 
act of believing into Christ, and changes these toward 
Christ. But this does not carry the whole man into Christ. 
Baptism is the act by which the whole man — soul, mind, 
heart, prepared by faith, and the body — is carried into 
Christ. Then only is remission promised. Then faith car- 
ries us into Christ, or we believe into Christ, only as our 
believing leads us to perform the acts that place us in 
Christ. Faith, perfected by works, is the bringing the 
body into harmony with the faith of the heart. Faith, per- 
fected by works, embodied and expressed in baptism, puts 
us into Christ. Many believe eis Christ that never put 
him on — never receive the forgiveness of their sins. 'The 
chief rulers" (John 12: 42) believed eis him; but they did 
not confess him, because they loved the praise of men more 
than the praise of God, and they never received the remis- 
sion of sins. Still, faith eis Christ is the grand principle 
that leads one to put on Christ; and faith, perfected by 
works, puts a man into Christ. 

It is certainly as important to understand the ends to 
which faith leads as those to which baptism leads. Eis 
expresses the end, or purpose, of God in the commands 
given. It expresses the ends to which he proposes to guide 
man. To say man must understand all the purposes, or 
ends, to which God v proposes to lead him is absurd. If to 
understand these ends and purposes is necessary to the en- 
joyment of them, then no child of mortality will ever enjoy 
them. God asks man to let him lead him as a little child is 
led by its mother. He who confidently trusts God and is 
led by him, even though he knows not whither he goes, will 
be led into the remission of sins and life everlasting. The 
great end is to get men to let God lead them, to do what 
God commands, because God commands it and because they 
love and trust God, and God will lead them safely. D. L. 

"BETTER THING," WHAT? 

Brother Sewell: (1) To what promise does Paul refer in Heb. 11: 
39? (2) What is that "better thing" provided for us by which those 
to whom Paul refers in the context were made perfect with us? (3) 
In what sense were they made perfect with us? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 59 

(1) The promise the people spoken of did not receive was 
likely the promise made to Abraham that in his seed all the 
nations of the earth should be blessed — that is, the promise 
of a coming Messiah, the new covenant, through which the 
promise of eternal life comes. This promise was repeated 
in various forms and at different times by the prophets. 
It was confidently looked for by the Jewish people for many 
years before it was fulfilled by the coming of Christ. The 
blessings of Christianity are many and are uplifting in 
many ways, but they could only be realized in prospect un- 
til they came. But those ancient worthies had such strong 
faith in the promise that they could look through all their 
trials and persecutions and rejoice in hope of what they 
were sure would come. The coming of Christ and the es- 
tablishment of the new covenant was the completion of all 
God's arrangements for the well-being of the human race. 

(2) The "better thing" provided for us was, doubtless, 
the new covenant, the completion of God's arrangements 
for the complete elevation and salvation of man, and the 
opening up of eternal life. Former covenants were incom- 
plete, only preparing the way for a better and more perfect 
tabernacle, or covenant, that could make for man a perfect 
character and fit him for the glories of the eternal home in 
heaven. The new covenant is "a better covenant, estab- 
lished upon better promises." The apostle says regarding 
it: "And for this cause he is the mediator of a new cove- 
nant, that a death having taken place for the redemption 
of the transgressions that were under the first covenant, 
they that have been called may receive the promise of the 
eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9: 15.) No promise of eter- 
nal life was ever made till life and immortality were 
brought to light through the gospel. Through Christ all 
the righteous dead of all the ages have the promise of eter- 
nal life. Till he came, nothing was perfect. 

(3) All, both Jews and Gentiles, in all the ages, that lived 
and died, or may yet live and die, in the service of God, 
will be blessed with immortality and eternal life. But be- 
fore Christ came no one was directly promised eternal life. 
Those worthies that suffered such terrible persecutions and 
who manifested such great faith in the ultimate fulfillment 
of the promise made to Abraham had no direct promise of 
everlasting life. But when Christ came, died, and rose 
again, the way was fully opened for all those worthies to 
have the precious promise of the eternal home in glory. 
Thus the arrangements were at once made through Christ 
for all the ages, for all godly people to have and enjoy all 



60 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the blessings provided by the Son of God, which are fully- 
revealed in the new and everlasting covenant. Let all the 
glory and honor for all these blessings be given to God 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, now and forever. 

BIBLE, SCIENCE, AND JOSHUA'S COMMAND TO THE 
SUN AND MOON. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer through the Gospel 
Advocate and make science harmonize with the Bible in regard to 
Joshua's command where he commanded the sun and moon to stand 
still. 

This is the passage alluded to : "Then spake Joshua to the 
Lord in the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites 
before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Is- 
rael, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon ; and thou, Moon, in 
the valley of Ajalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon 
stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their 
enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So 
the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not 
to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like 
that before it or after it, that the Lord hearkened unto the 
voice of a man: for the Lord fought for Israel." (Josh. 
10: 12-14.) We suppose the difficulty is in the language 
that speaks as though the sun moves and the earth stands 
still, and as though in this miracle the sun, instead of the 
earth, stood still; while science teaches us that the sun 
stands still and the earth moves around it; and that, ac- 
cording to this, Joshua should have asked that the earth 
should stand still instead of the sun. The explanation, 
doubtless, is that the Bible spoke to man in his own lan- 
guage in things of this sort, and these things are repre- 
sented as they appear to men and just as men for more 
than five thousand years thought they really were. It is 
only a thing of modern times that science has been suffi- 
ciently developed to tell us that the sun stands still and that 
the earth moves, and the first man that published it to the 
world was punished for his daring presumption. And if 
the Bible had said, three thousand years before science 
made this discovery, that the earth moves and that the 
sun is stationary, a hundred would have rejected the Bible 
on this account to where one does now over the above pas- 
sage. The Bible represents these things just as they ap- 
pear unto men, and speaks in the language that men them- 
selves use in such cases. The Bible speaks of the rising 
of the sun and the going down of the sun, just as men have 
always spoken of these things. And not only formerly, but 
even now, after all the developments of science and in spite 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 61 

of all its revelations, men still speak of the sun as rising, as 
going down, etc. ; and even the scientific men of the world 
themselves speak in the same style. So far as man can see 
when he looks abroad, the earth is still and the sun moving ; 
and the Bible speaks of these things just as they appear to, 
and as they are spoken of by, men. 

Joshua simply desired that the day should be prolonged 
until the Israelites should avenge themselves upon their en- 
emies, and this is what the Lord granted ; and the language 
used is just the language that modern scientists themselves 
would use to-day to express similar things. The infidel 
world is hard pressed when it gets up such things as this 
upon which to 1 reject the Bible and all it contains. Just 
upon what they imagine a small discrepancy between the 
Bible and science, they reject everything that is sacred to 
them for time and eternity — reject all the love of heaven, 
all the offers of salvation, present and eternal; reject all 
the invitations from God to a home above, where suns shall 
rise and set no more, just because in the dreams of their 
imaginations there is a contradiction of science in the Bi- 
ble. The man that rejects the Bible upon these little things, 
and then undertakes to account for the introduction of 
Christianity into the world and its unparalleled success at 
the very beginning, will have difficulties a thousand times 
greater than to accept Christianity and the whole Bible as 
true. E. G. S. 

BIRTH, THE NEW. (John 3: 8.) 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I wish, if it is convenient, you 
would give me some light on John 3:8. 

The Savior is telling Nicodemus: "A man, to enter into 
the kingdom of heaven, must be born again." Nicodemus, 
having before his mind the natural birth, says : "How can 
a man when he is old enter the second time into his moth- 
er's womb and be born again?" The Savior says: "Not 
that fleshly birth, Nicodemus. You must be born of water 
and the Spirit. It is flesh that is born of flesh in the mate- 
rial birth, but spirit is born of spirit." Then he adds in 
explanation ^ "The wind blows where it pleases ; you cannot 
tell whence it cometh or whither it goeth; so is every one 
that is born of the Spirit." He is simply explaining that 
it is the spirit — the immaterial, unseen part of man — not 
the flesh, that is affected by the Spirit. The every one is 
explained as the spirit of every man. That immaterial 
spirit of man, like the wind, unseen and intangible, is be- 
gotten by the Spirit. That spirit, affected and changed, 
leads the body in which it dwells into obedience to God. So 
the birth is affected by the water and the Spirit. D. L. 



62 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

BIRTHS, ONE OR TWO, IN JOHN 3:5? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain John 3: 5 — whether 
there is but one birth spoken of in said verse or not, or whether two 
births are alluded to. I think such an article would be of great im- 
portance in this community. 

The Savior most certainly meant but one birth when he 
said : "Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he 
cannot enter into the kingdom of God." In verse 3 he said : 
"Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of 
God." Born again just means one birth, and then the ex- 
pression, "born of water and of the Spirit," is only a fur- 
ther explanation ; gives two items — water and Spirit — that 
are requisite in bringing about the new birth, the one birth 
of water and Spirit. Peter, writing to those who had al- 
ready done what Jesus said must be done, had already been 
born of the water and the Spirit, had already entered the 
kingdom of God on earth, said, "being born again," etc., 
which shows one birth only. (1 Pet. 1: 22.) Christ was 
only speaking figuratively of what should take place in man 
in becoming a Christian, and we had just as well say that a 
man must become a Christian twice as to say that it takes 
two births to enter into the kingdom of God. One natural 
birth introduces us into this world, and one new birth, one 
birth of water and Spirit, introduces a man into the king- 
dom. But it requires all that Jesus said to put a man into 
the kingdom, and a man is not born again till he is born of 
water as well as of the Spirit. The Spirit of God directs 
every step to be taken in entering into the kingdom of 
heaven. Water baptism is one of these, and the last one, 
as Jesus shows in the commission, when he says : "He that 
believeth and is baptized shall be saved." The promise of 
salvation is not merely when they believe, but when they 
are also baptized ; and such also was the teaching of the 
Spirit through Peter when he said : "Repent, and be bap- 
tized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the 
remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost." And the three thousand that were baptized un- 
der that command were born again — born of water and the 
Spirit; and as the Spirit of God commands baptism before 
it promises remission, no man need think that he can be 
born again without water, without baptism, for Jesus shows 
plainly he cannot. Hence, whenever a man believes the 
gospel with all his heart, repents of his sins, and, upon the 
confession of the name of Christ, is baptized, he is a Chris- 
tian, is in the kingdom of God, is born again ; and it takes 
these acts of obedience to constitute the one new birth. 

E. G. S. 






BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 63 

BISHOP, MUST A, BE MARRIED? 

Brother Seivell: Please tell through the Gospel Advocate whether 
1 Tim. 3 : 2 means that a bishop must be a married man, or only that 
he must not have more than one wife — must not be a polygamist. 

I do not know of any other passage that throws any par- 
ticular light on the passage named, and this one seems to 
give some people trouble to fix its meaning. I have just 
examined two commentaries on the subject, and both hold 
that it means that an elder, a bishop, should have one wife, 
but that it requires that he shall not have more than one. 
I would not speak radically on the subject, as to whether 
it means he must of nec e( |sity be married or not; but that 
seems to be a safe conclusion as to the language — that he 
must be the husband of one wife. But this principle is 
generally true along that line: that practical business men 
of suitable age to be appointed as elders are nearly always 
married men. Very few old bachelors are suitable for eld- 
ers. That may be because all the men that are practically 
smart enough to be elders of the church are too smart to try 
to live single. I hope those about to be bachelors will think 
about this, anyway, and it may stimulate them to marry 
some good woman, and I am sure they will make more prac- 
tical sort of men and better elders. But, finally, since the 
Book plainly says that the bishop "must be without re- 
proach, the husband of one wife," etc., it is certainly safe to 
always appoint married men as elders. But there is one 
other passage we will notice. The Book contemplates that 
married men will have children and that they will keep them 
under good training. "One that ruleth well his own house, 
having his children in subjection with all gravity; (but if a 
man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he 
take care of the church of God?)" (1 Tim. 3: 4, 5.) This 
rather leaves the old bachelor out, as he has no household 
to rule. So, take it all in all, it is safe to appoint good, 
practical married men, with families of children, to be eld- 
ers; and yet modern sinful custom is knocking even mar- 
ried men out of that qualification by so many homes having 
no children. But, brethren, follow the letter of the Book 
and you will be safe. 

BLASPHEMY, WHAT IS? 

Brother Lipscomb ; What are we to understand to be the full mean- 
ing of the word blaspheme? Can we blaspheme against men? 

I gave a pretty full account in the Gospel Advocate of 
May 4. The word means to speak lightly or disrespectfully 
of persons or things held sacred. It is used about sixty 
times in the New Testament. There are three different 



64 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

forms of the word blasphemy used. Matt. 9: 2, 3 is the 
first example: "Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick 
of the palsy, Son, be of good cheer ; thy sins are forgiven. 
And behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, 
This man blasphemeth." (See Mark 2: 7.) For a man 
to claim divine power was to dishonor God and blaspheme 
him. The second mention of it is in Matt. 12: 31, where 
they accused Jesus of working miracles by the power of the 
devil. Jesus told them that all manner of "sin and blas- 
phemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy 
against the Spirit shall not be forgiven/' Jesus says of this 
(verse 32) : "Whosoever shall V^eak a word against the 
Son of man, it shall be forgiven him ; but whosoever shall 
speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, 
neither in this world, nor in that which is to come." Jesus 
makes it blasphemy to speak against him or the Holy Spirit. 
(See also Mark 3 : 28.) In Matt. 15 : 18, 19, Jesus tells that 
"adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings 
[blasphemies] " "come forth out of the heart." When Jesus 
claimed to be the Christ, the high priest called it "blas- 
phemy." (Mark 14: 64.) It derogated from the honor of 
God to call a human being "God" or to claim him as en- 
dowed with divine power. The same word in Matt. 27 : 39 
is translated "railed on him." "And they that passed by 
railed on him [Jesus], wagging their heads." (See also 
Mark 15: 29.) To ridicule and insult the Savior was to 
revile or blaspheme him. They that were hanged "railed 
on him." (Luke 23 : 39 ; see also Matt. 27 : 44.) To shame 
and reproach him was to blaspheme him. Rom. 3 : 8 says : 
"As we be slanderously reported." To misrepresent the 
teaching of an apostle was to blaspheme him. Again, in 
Rom. 14 : 16 the same word is translated "evil spoken of" — 
"Let not then your good be evil spoken of." To speak evil 
of a good thing is to blaspheme it. In 1 Cor. 4: 13 it is 
translated "being defamed" — "Being defamed, we en- 
treat." To defame a good man was to blaspheme him. In 
1 Cor. 10: 30 it is translated "evil spoken of— "Why am 
I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks?" To 
speak evil of a good act is to blaspheme the act and the 
person who acts. In Tit. 2: 8 it is translated to speak 
"evil" of a man. Again, in 1 Pet. 4 : 4 ; 2 Pet. 2 : 2, 10, 12 ; 
Jude 8-10; 1 Tim. 6: 4, it is translated "railings," "evil 
speaking," etc. To blaspheme means to speak lightly of, 
to defame, or to rail at any good or sacred person or thing. 

Jesus himself, his teachings, servants, followers, might 
be railed at, rejected, scorned, and blasphemed; but when 
the Holy Spirit was come, the additional teaching and tes- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 65 

timony of the Spirit would be given and the guilty ones 
would have the opportunity of repenting. If this was re- 
jected, spoken lightly of, refused, no more testimony or op- 
portunity to repent would be given either in this world or 
the world to come. To blaspheme is to turn from or reject 
as untrue. To reject the teachings of the Holy Spirit is 
to sin against the Spirit. 

BLESSINGS, CONDITIONS OF GOD'S. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please answer in the columns of the Gospel 
Advocate if you do, or ever did, take the position that if a person 
came to you and said he believed that God for Christ's sake had par- 
doned his sins, you would try to teach him better, but, if you could 
not, that you would take and baptize him in that condition, believing 
that he was already saved. Please answer, as you are accused by 
several brethren of taking that position several years ago. I am a 
little over a year old in the gospel. 

I have never found where God has ever suspended the 
acceptability of man's service on man's knowing the mo- 
ment God rewarded the service, or the time and reason of a 
blessing. If he has done this, I do not see who can be saved. 
The highest type of faith is that of Abraham. He did 
God's commands, left all and followed him, "not knowing 
whither he went." Others manifesting great faith are given 
in the Hebrew letter. Of these it is said : "Wherefore God is 
not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared 
for them a city." God made many promises to Abraham, 
Isaac, and Jacob of blessing, and how and when the bless- 
ing would come. They, through weakness, through pre- 
occupation of their minds with other ideas, and through 
having their spiritual vision clouded by their surround- 
ings, failed to understand the nature or special time of the 
divine promises ; yet God never withheld the promise when 
in obedience to him they came to the appointed place. 
Christ so often and so plainly told the apostles that he would 
be crucified and raised from the dead the third day; yet 
their minds were so preoccupied with other views that they 
did not see or understand or believe it. They failed to be- 
lieve it because they did not see it. They had confidence in 
Jesus and faith in the truth of his teaching, but the pre- 
occupation of their minds with the idea of a temporal king- 
dom and earthly glory hindered their seeing the truth then. 
Jesus did not reject their service because they failed to see 
this, the most important item in his teaching. He knew, 
if led on to obey truly other truths they did see, that they 
would come to see the fullness of this truth. 

Peter on Pentecost preached : "The promise is unto you, 
and to your children, and to all that are afar off." Yet he 



66 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

was slow to understand and believe the promise was to the 
Gentiles, because his prejudices were in the way. These 
prejudices were so blind when they were aroused, after he 
had opened the door to the Gentiles, they led him to refuse 
to eat with them as brethren. Yet his service was accepted. 
God makes allowance for human ignorance and human 
weakness, and accepts service despite much blindness and 
many errors, or we are all lost. It is only weak man, who 
imagines that he knows all truth, that makes service de- 
pend upon a perfect understanding of God's purposes and 
times. I have no doubt those who refuse to recognize the 
obedience because the person does not come up to the stand- 
ard of knowledge mistake the nature and character of the 
faith required in points much more essential to the forma- 
tion of the godlike character than the point they insist on. 

The truth is, there are different motives given in the Bi- 
ble to lead men to obedience. The highest, holiest motive to 
obedience is that which led Jesus — the desire to fulfill all 
righteousness — to do the will of God. I would fear much 
to meet Christ at the judgment seat of God if I rejected him 
who did what God commanded him, led by the motive that 
led Jesus Christ to obey him. When a man trusts God and 
honors him from the desire of obeying him, he acts from the 
motive that is more pleasing to God than any other. 

When we give ourselves up to be guided by God, he leads 
us to all good. The enjoyment of the good depends upon 
our being led by God, not on our wisdom or knowledge as 
to the points at which he bestows this or that blessing. 

To take one truth or one motive out of a number given 
by God and say, "This one shall be understood, and the oth- 
ers need not be," is to do violence to the order of God, and is 
to crystallize a sect around a truth, wrested from its God- 
given place, ignoring other truths just as important. This 
is to form a sect. 

No truth is more manifest in God's dealings with man 
than that he often gives a number of motives to move man. 
One motive will move one man, another motive will move 
a different one, because they are differently situated. A 
man moved to obedience by any one of the motives placed 
before him will be accepted in the obedience. 

Jesus said : "Though ye believe not me, believe the works : 
that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, 
and I in him." (John 10: 38.) If they could not believe 
through the words of Jesus, yet could believe through his 
works, he was willing to accept them. Take this as an ex- 
ample : A man is born and reared in a Presbyterian family. 
From childhood he is taught to believe that infant sprin- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 67 

kling and all the practices of the Presbyterian Church are 
right. He lives in all good conscience and tries to do the 
will of God. In reading the Bible, he sees that God re- 
quires men to believe, then be baptized. He sees that bap- 
tism is a burial. In his anxiety to do the will of God, he 
is baptized, before his attention has ever been directed to 
the fact that it is "for the remission of sins ;" but he is 
moved by the same motive that led Jesus to be baptized — a 
desire to fulfill all righteousness. Who will say that man's 
baptism is not acceptable to God? Who will say he ought 
to defer a duty that he knows God requires at his hands 
until he learns all the blessings God will bestow, and just 
where and when each blessing will come in, and why it is 
bestowed? If that is necessary, no man can ever tell when 
he should be baptized. Such a contention arises from a 
very mistaken idea of God's character and of the ground of 
his mercy to man. The ground of God's mercy to man is 
not that man understands and knows how God works or the 
point when and where he bestows his blessing; but it is 
that man is weak, sinful, helpless, willing to trust God and 
follow him, not knowing whither he leads. 

Then were a man to come to me who had been reared in 
a beclouded atmosphere and had seen it was his duty to be 
buried with Christ in baptism, but under the influence of 
his former teachings could not yet understand it is neces- 
sary to observe the Lord's Supper every Lord's day, but 
manifested a determination to learn and do the whole will of 
God, I would baptize him. Indeed, unless I added to the 
requirements of God in a presumptuous way, I would not 
inquire or know whether he would meet on any Lord's day 
or not; and a man that would require one coming in faith 
and demanding baptism to declare his belief in the neces- 
sity of coming together on each Lord's day to lay by in 
store as the Lord had prospered him and to partake of the 
Lord's Supper as a condition of his baptism would very 
presumptuously add to the word of the Lord. I would bap- 
tize such a one without inquiring whether he understood 
this duty and the blessings flowing from it; and if he or 
some one else told me that he doubted whether it was neces- 
sary to meet every first day of the week, either before or 
after baptism, I would try to teach him better. If I failed 
to get him to see it, I would baptize him, trusting in his 
efforts to obey God he would learn this truth. It is not 
necessary to understand all truth before he obeys what he 
does understand. I did not say I believed he was saved. 



68 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

BLIND, WHO ARE THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Luke 6: 39. Who 
does the Savior have reference to when he says: "Can the blind lead 
the blind?" Who are the "blind?" 

He just means anybody that tries to lead men into the 
truth when they themselves do not understand the truth, 
but are teaching error. In Matt. 15 he uses the same ex- 
pression and applies it to the scribes and Pharisees. They 
were leading the people; but they were blind to the truth, 
and they and those they led would all fall together, like the 
literally blind leading the blind would fall into the ditch 
together. And so will it be with the leaders who are them- 
selves blind to the truth. They and those they lead will fall 
into the ditch together, will fail together of obtaining the 
blessings of the Lord. God's blessings can be obtained only 
by doing his will. E. G. S. 

BLOOD, HOW CHRIST'S CLEANSES. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please tell us what the Bible teaches in regard 
to the blood of Christ cleansing us from sin. How is it applied to the 
hearts and consciences of men? I heard a preacher say in a dis- 
course that it was taken from the altar of God in heaven and applied 
to the hearts and consciences by the Spirit of the living God. What 
is the "anointing" that "teacheth you of all things" in 1 John 2: 27? 

Were you to question that preacher a little, I am sure you 
would find that he does not know what he meant by the 
Spirit taking the blood from the altar of God and apply- 
ing it to the heart of man. Flesh and blood cannot enter 
heaven. This was as true of the flesh and blood of Christ 
as of any other blood. Nor has the preacher any concep- 
tion of what is meant by cleansing by the blood of Christ. 
We are cleansed by the blood of Christ means Jesus gave 
certain laws by which we are cleansed. He sealed those 
laws by his death, or by shedding his blood. To give his 
life and to shed his blood mean the same thing. These laws 
were rendered efficacious by being sealed with his blood. 
They became his last will and testament. In compliance 
with this will, we inherit the blessings provided for in the 
will. We come to the blood of Christ, then, by complying 
with his laws embodied in the last will and testament of 
Jesus Christ. This lesson was taught in the typical blood 
of the lambs and goats of the Old Testament. Then the law 
was sprinkled with the blood, and thus became authorita- 
tive (read Heb. 9 and 10) ; and, coming to that law, the per- 
son received the efficacy of the blood. Just so the law was 
sealed by the blood of Christ. In obeying the law, we re- 
ceive the cleansing of the blood. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 69 

BLOOD, EATING. 

Brother Sewell: Will you please explain Acts 15: 20: "And from 
things strangled, and from blood?" I heard a brother say in a dis- 
course that it was wrong to eat a rabbit caught in a snare or to eat 
the blood of an animal. Will you please give in the Gospel Advocate 
what you think is the meaning of this scripture? 

In every dispensation that God ever made he forbade peo- 
ple to eat blood. He first forbade it in the patriarchal, 
then in the Jewish, and lastly in the Christian dispensation. 
Hence there never was a time when men could eat blood 
without committing actual rebellion in the sight of God. 
Nothing strangled with the blood in it is allowed to be 
eaten ; neither is blood to be eaten in any other way. Some 
people esteem blood pudding as a very great luxury ; but no 
man can eat it, or anything else made of blood, without 
violating a positive command of God, and thus imperiling 
his soul. God is not to be mocked in these matters. 

BODY OF CHRIST, DIVIDING THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Suppose there is a church with a 
goodly number of members — say, one hundred. They have many of 
their number in disorder — drinking, cursing, dancing, card playing, 
threatening, and such like. Now suppose such church has been 
preached to for many years to appoint shepherds who will take the 
matter in hand to keep order, but they will not do it. New cases are 
coming up. Would a few who wish to do right be justifiable in with- 
drawing from them, and thus divide the church, such as it is? 

There is no sin more frequently and persistently con- 
demned and warned against as fatally evil in its results by 
both Christ and the Holy Spirit than that of dividing a 
church of God. The division that is here so earnestly con- 
demned is not a division of a denomination or into denomi- 
nations, but a division of the individual congregation of 
disciples. To the congregation of Rome, Paul says: "So 
we, being many, are one body in Christ." It was to this 
same congregation he said : "Now I beseech you, brethren, 
mark them which cause divisions [in this congregation] 
and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have 
learned." To the congregation at Corinth he warned and 
protested against parties and divisions in that congrega- 
tion. It was the same to the Ephesians. The sin of divi- 
sion against which they are warned is division in their 
own congregation. So of the church at Colosse. We have 
never seen a sentence in the Bible admonishing a general 
unity as is even contended for at this day among disciples. 
Without saying so, they mean a denominational unity. 
Many think it a slight matter to divide and sunder a congre- 
gation of the Lord Jesus, which is the body of Christ; but 



70 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

they contend greatly against a general division. This is 
unknown to the Bible. That is severely condemned. Un- 
der Christ's law, if the congregations do not divide, there 
can be no division, no strife. 

There ought to be no division in the body of Christ. 
Great evil grew up in the congregations in primitive times, 
but the Holy Spirit never intimated that a circumstance 
could arise that would justify divisions. 

The Christian's duty is to stand by the truth, . maintain 
the truth, enforce the truth, but do it always in the church 
of God. If any divide or secede, let it be those who violate 
his law. 

But a man ought not to rest with the state of affairs de- 
picted in the foregoing. No man can well tell unless he 
was upon the ground and made familiar with the whole con- 
dition. We cannot but believe that one earnest, godly man, 
with the Bible in his hand, could cause reformation or bring 
about discipline in the church of God. The trouble is, we 
so frequently go at these things in a hesitating, men-fearing 
spirit. 

A dozen members standing on the Bible and enforcing its 
discipline in the spirit of Christ upon a hundred disobe- 
dient to him would not be dividing the church. If the hun- 
dred refused to recognize divine authority, they would no 
more constitute a church than one disobedient one would 
constitute a church in opposition to one hundred maintain- 
ing the law of God. But we think it very seldom that a 
majority of a congregation, rightly approached, would re- 
fuse to abide by the teachings of the Bible. D. L. 

BODY, PRESENTING THE, A SACRIFICE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain through the Gospel 
Advocate Rom. 1: 12, which reads as follows: "I beseech you there- 
fore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a 
living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable 
service." 

The Christian religion involves the whole man — body, 
soul, and spirit. The whole man must be holy, the body as 
well as the heart. When a man's heart has been sprinkled 
from an evil conscience and his body has been washed in 
pure water — in other words, when one has believed the gos- 
pel with all the heart, has repented of his sins, and, upon 
the confession of the name of Christ, has been baptized into 
Christ — that one is wholly consecrated to the service of 
God ; his body is then holy. And so long as he walks in the 
Spirit and does not fulfill the lusts of the flesh, he can pre- 
sent his body a living, holy sacrifice anywhere — at the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 71 

Lord's table, at the house of prayer, visiting the afflicted, 
or any other work required of the Christian. In the ex- 
pression, "a living sacrifice," the apostle, we suppose, has 
reference by contrast to the bodies of the animals that were 
sacrificed under the Jewish law. Those bodies were dead 
when offered in sacrifice to God. But our bodies must be 
living, active, working bodies in the Lord's vineyard ; and 
if we do not keep our bodies pure and holy, as well as our 
souls, the Lord will not accept us. 

BONES, RESURRECTION OF DRY. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Ezek. 37: 1-11 — the resurrection 
of dry bones. 

The Jewish people at this time were in captivity, and had 
been for a number of years, on account of their many sins, 
and were becoming much discouraged about ever getting 
back to their land again. This vision of the dry bones was 
given to encourage them, to show them that God was watch- 
ing over and caring for them, and that he was able and 
willing to do anything needful to be done to restore them 
to their own land again; and the vision of bringing these 
dry bones back into human beings again was to cheer the 
people up and give them renewed hope. They seem to have 
concluded that they themselves were little more than dry 
bones. Verses 11-13 fully explain the purpose of the mat- 
ter. "Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are 
the whole house of Israel : behold, they say, Our bones are 
dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts." 
This verse shows the pitiable and hopeless conditions they 
had been imagining themselves to be in. Then verses 12, 
13 go on to say: "Therefore prophesy and say unto them, 
Thus saith the Lord God ; Behold, my people, I will open 
your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, 
and bring you into the land of Israel. And ye shall know 
that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, 
my people, and brought you up out of your graves." This 
was a remarkably strong figure to convince them that their 
case was not a hopeless one, as they were supposing, but 
that God was still watching over them for good, and that 
he was able to bring them back to their own land again, and 
that he would certainly do so. 

BORN OF GOD, WHEN IS A MAN? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please explain through 
the Gospel Advocate 1 John 1 : 8 ; 3 : 9. I want to know who it is that 
is born of Christ. 

John chiefly of the inspired writers uses the figure of a 
birth to illustrate our union with God ; others allude to and 



72 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

use other figures to illustrate the same truth. Paul uses 
the figure of a planting with and growth in Christ to illus- 
trate the same thing. He uses the figure of a grafting into 
Christ, whereby we become branches of the same vine; of 
adoption into the family of God, whereby we are permitted 
to call him "Abba, Father ;" of a marriage. 

These various figures, with others still, all represent one 
and the same thing. But the Bible does not always speak 
of this matter in figurative language. It sometimes details 
the exact things to be done to bring one into Christ. The 
figure is fully and clearly explained by these literal direc- 
tions. The Bible does not mean that a man is literally en- 
grafted into Christ; but his entrance into him is like an 
engrafting in some respects. The results are likewise in 
some respects similar. A branch, in being grafted into a 
stock, changes its source of life. It no longer draws its 
sustenance and life from its own natural root, but from the 
root into which it is engrafted. The Christian is broken 
off from his own fleshly life as the source of spiritual life 
and draws his life from Christ, partakes of his nature, im- 
bibes his Spirit, conforms his life to the life of Christ ; and, 
unlike the grafted branch, it produces fruit according to 
the nature of the root from which it draws its life. So, too, 
it is in some respects like to a planting, both in its processes 
and results. 

It is compared to a birth. It is not a literal birth, but 
in some of its processes and results it resembles a birth and 
is illustrated by it. Just exactly what is required without 
figure to bring him into Christ is required to complete or 
perfect the birth. A person can always determine exactly 
when a man is born into Christ or born of God by taking 
the directions given, when no figure is used, and see what is 
commanded in order to bring him into Christ. But we will 
examine what is said in reference to being born again. The 
different connections in which the figure is used help us to 
correct ideas in reference to the process of birth and the 
condition into which it brings us. 

We find the figure introduced thus: "He came unto his 
own, and his own received him not. But as many as re- 
ceived him, to them gave he power to become the sons of 
God, even to them that believe on his name: which were 
born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will 
of man, but of God." (John 1: 11-13.) To become the 
sons of God and to be born of God is one and the same thing. 
Then the birth was not according to blood, nor from the 
lust of the flesh, nor according to the will of man, but was 
according to the divine will. The power to become the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 73 

sons of God was given to those who received him or believed 
in his name. The simple believing did not make sons, but 
put them in a condition that they could become sons. It 
plainly teaches that without believing they could not become 
sons of God. 

In John 3 : 5, in the conversation with Nicodemus, the new 
birth is again referred to as the means of entrance into the 
kingdom of heaven. This is a passage much controverted ; 
but it has always seemed to us that the simple, plain truths 
lying upon the surface ought to be easily grasped. 

There is controversy as to whether the word translated 
wind should be wind or spirit. We do not believe the ques- 
tion affects the lesson of the passage in any degree. Jesus 
tells Nicodemus he must be born again or he cannot see 
the kingdom of God. It puzzles Nicodemus ; his mind is on 
a literal birth. "How can a man enter into his mother's 
womb when he is old, to be born again ?" Jesus answers: 
"It is not your mother's womb from which you must be 
born ; but except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, 
he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is 
born of the flesh [your mother's womb] is [your] flesh, 
that which is born of the Spirit is [your] spirit. In other 
words, it is not your flesh that shall be quickened and be 
again delivered from the womb, but your spirit." Spirit 
begets and operates on spirit. Then he introduces the fig- 
ure: "The wind blows where it pleases; thou hearest the 
sound, though you cannot tell whence it cometh or whither 
it goeth. So is every one that is born of the Spirit." 

Now, the point manifestly is to illustrate to Nicodemus 
more fully how it is not the flesh, but the spirit, that is the 
subject of change in the birth. Hence, as the wind is unseen 
in its course, so it is the unseen, or spirit, of man that 
must be affected or wrought upon by the Spirit. This in- 
dicates the change in the spirit. Then, the body, under 
the direction of the quickened or renewed spirit in man, is 
brought forth from the water. But more of this at an- 
other time. 

From this we learn that man's spirit, as the unseen spirit, 
is quickened, or changed, or operated upon by the Spirit of 
God as an essential part of the birth. 

The manner in which this quickening is done is plainly 
recorded in the Bible. Paul, whose tongue and pen the 
Spirit used, said to the Corinthians: "In Christ Jesus I 
have begotten you through the gospel." (1 Cor. 4: 15.) 
The gospel was the means used by the Spirit for reaching 
or quickening the spirit of man. James (1: 18) says: "Of 
his own will begat he us with the word of truth." Peter 



74 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

says : "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of in- 
corruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth 
forever." (1 Pet. 1: 23.) We might multiply evidences 
indefinitely indicating how the Spirit of God reached, quick- 
ened, molded the spirit of man ; but these must suffice. 

A man, then, cannot be born again unless he believes in 
Christ, or his spirit is changed or quickened by the Spirit 
of God. 

The next scripture to which we refer is 1 John 3:9: 
"Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his 
seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is 
born of God." This passage may have a strained meaning 
forced upon it that will* perplex people; but, taken in con- 
nection with other scriptures, it can only mean that a man 
born of God receives the word of God, which is the incorrup- 
tible seed of the kingdom, into his heart as the rule of his 
life, and while he adheres to it as that rule he cannot live 
in rebellion against God. He cannot intentionally sin 
against God ; he cannot pursue a course of sin. It cannot 
mean that he never sins, for in the beginning of the Epistle 
he tells them: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves." But he afterwards comes to contrast the 
courses of life. He says first: "He that committeth sin is 
of the devil ; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For 
this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might 
destroy the works of the devil." Here he means a life, or 
course, of sin. Then, in contrast with serving the devil 
through sin as the purpose and course of life, he says: 
"The child of God doth not commit sin, for his seed remain- 
eth in him, and he cannot [purposely] pursue a course of 
sin, because he is born of God." Compare this with the 
expression in 1 John 2: 24: "Let that therefore abide in 
you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that 
which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in 
you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father." 
This word of God, the seed of the kingdom, heard from the 
beginning, was the thing to abide in them. Through it 
they were born again, and by it, if it should remain in them, 
they were to be kept in Christ and in God, or from courses 
of sin and rebellion against God. 

A man must be born again, must receive the word of God 
into his heart, into a good and understanding heart ; it will 
bear fruit in no other. The reception of the word, the 
seed, is equivalent to believing in his name — is the act of 
change of the spirit and constitutes the first step in the 
process of conversion or being born again. "Whatsoever is 
born of God overcometh the world : and this is the victory 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 75 

that overcometh the world, even our faith. Who is he that 
overeometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is 
the Son of God?" Here believing that Jesus is the Son of 
God — our faith — overcomes the world ; and he that over- 
comes the world must be born of God. 

"Every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." 
The converse of this is: No one is born of God save he 
who loves. But "he that loveth not his brother whom he 
hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen? 
And this commandment have we from him, That he who 
loveth God love his brother also." No man is born of God, 
then, unless he loves God, and love to God involves the love 
of his brother also. "By this we know that we love the 
children of God, when we love God, and keep his command- 
ments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his com- 
mandments: and his commandments are not grievous." 
This resolves itself into this : We are not born of God un- 
til we receive his word, and our hearts by that word are 
made anxious to keep his commandmnets. 

The evidence that we love God, that we love the brethren, 
even to our own hearts, and hence that we are born again, 
is that we are anxious to keep the commandments of God. 
The anxiety to do the commandments of God is the first in- 
dication of breathing of the new principle of life in the soul. 
It is excited by the word of God, by the gospel of the Son of 
God. We love him, for he first loved us. The desire to do 
the will of God is the first indication of the new life in the 
soul as manifested to the individual himself. The life thus 
imparted manifests and develops itself in acts of obedience 
to God. Life must exist before birth. Birth is the deliver- 
ance of the incipient life into a state into which it may find 
independent activity and development. But the loving leads 
to obedience. Repentance from all evil purposes confronts 
the new desire as the first requirement. Repentance espe- 
cially concerns and affects the will and purpose. But no 
purpose of the will which dwells in the body can find devel- 
opment or be perfected until it molds the body in which it 
dwells and through which it acts into harmony with itself. 
The first requirement that touches the action of the body is : 
Be baptized. Hence the first desire kindled by the gospel 
in the soul is to obey God. This desire, searching the will 
and purpose, brings forth repentance; and repentance, 
working toward completion, leads to baptism as obedience 
to the first overt or bodily act — our immersion into and 
emerging from the water; hence, the deliverance of the 
new life into a state or condition suited for the develop- 
ment of that life imparted by the Spirit of God into a dis- 



76 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tinct life and being of its own. That state into which it 
is introduced and which is suited for its growth and devel- 
opment is the kingdom of God, of which Christ is the head 
and in which God's Spirit dwells. 

A man certainly cannot be said to be born again until he 
believes in Jesus as the Christ, changes the whole purpose 
of life toward God, and is buried out of self into Christ — 
introduced into the kingdom of God on earth. 

If we examine the duties as literally set forth in the Bible 
by which a man is quickened and introduced into Christ, 
we will find the fitness of the process to this figure. Men 
believe in Christ. This draws their affections, feelings, de- 
sires, toward him. This desire, not choked out, but fos- 
tered, produces a change of purpose, or will. Believers are 
commanded to repent; but they are baptized into Christ — 
put him on in baptism. In other words, through baptism 
the new principle of life in the soul is introduced into the 
kingdom suited for its growth — the church of God. 

When an individual is born of God, a child of God, he, 
having received the principle of new spiritual life from the 
Father, can preserve that life only by feeding it upon "the 
sincere milk of the word," the food prepared and given by 
the Father for the preservation of the new life. If that 
word remain in us, we will live in God, will not serve sin or 
the devil, but in our full purpose and interest will turn from 
him and will remain with God. We will through fleshly 
weakness frequently be betrayed into an act of sin, but can 
never purposely engage in a course or life of sin until the 
word of God ceases to dwell in us and control us. As sons 
of God, drawing our life from him, sustaining and develop- 
ing that life by his word dwelling in us as the controlling 
principle of life, we cannot otherwise than do the works of 
God and in our life bear the same fruit that exhibited itself 
in the life of Jesus Christ. As branches of the vine, he 
bears fruit through us. 

It sometimes occurs to us that too little of the life, prin- 
ciples, and temper of Jesus is presented in the presentation 
of the gospel. Our preaching of the gospel is too exclu- 
sively the authority of the Son of God. The spirit is im- 
bued too exclusively with a sense of responsibility to obey 
him in his specific legislative enactments. We are too little 
impressed or begotten with the Spirit of Christ, and the 
spirit begotten never lives the true life of Jesus. Our 
growth is all in the way of submission to specific ordinances, 
not enough the development of the life of Christ in our lives. 

We have given scripture and reasoning. While we be- 
lieve the reasoning correct and the conclusions true and in 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 77 

full accord with the Scriptures, all are at perfect liberty to 
reject these and cling to the Scriptures only. But with 
this, no man was introduced in primitive times into the 
kingdom of God save through believing in Christ, turning 
from sin, and being buried with Christ. Hence a person is 
not born into the new kingdom without these. When he 
comes into the church or has been baptized, he is not recog- 
nized as a true child of God unless the purpose reigns in his 
heart and controls his life to obey God and develop the 
Spirit of Christ anew in his life. His spirit must have this 
likeness of the divine Spirit impressed upon it or it is not 
born of that Spirit. D. L. 

BORN OF GOD AND SINNING NOT, 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 John 3: 9: "Whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and 
he cannot sin, because he is born of God." 

This passage is one that is difficult to be harmonized with 
some other passages, with the popular ideas many have of 
the expressions used. There are different kinds of sins 
spoken of in the Bible — the sin of ignorance and the pre- 
sumptuous sin of the Old Testament. John speaks of the 
sin unto death and of the sin not unto death. One of these 
sins is pardonable, the other not pardonable. John says: 
"If we [Christians] say that we have no sin, we deceive 
ourselves, and the truth is not in us." Here he evidently 
refers to the sin of weakness, or the sin which is not unto 
death; but of the other — willful, presumptuous sin — he 
says one born of God sinneth not — the presumptuous sin — 
because he is born of God. A man is born of God through 
the incorruptible seed, the word of God, which liveth and 
abideth forever. This is the seed which remaineth in him 
and prevents his sinning. So long as this seed, the word 
of God, remaineth in the man's heart to mold his heart and 
guide his life, he cannot willfully sin. He will fall into sin 
of weakness then. The apostles did. But of the willful sin 
he is here speaking, and this he will not commit while the 
word of God remaineth in him. The difficult point is that 
John said that his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot 
sin, because he is born of God. This is interpreted to mean 
that a man that is born of God cannot cast forth his word 
from his heart and sin. We do not think that this is the 
meaning, but regard it as simply a strong expression, indi- 
cating with John the improbability of one actively in ear- 
nest toward God turning from him and turning back to sin, 
and the impossibility of one with the word of God in his 



78 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

heart turning into willful sin. He must get that word out 
of his heart before he can do this. D. L. 

In the verse in chapter 3 the apostle was showing the 
difference between the children of God and the wicked peo- 
ple of this world. Those who make no pretensions to and 
feel no interest in Christianity think of nothing else but to 
go on in their worldly, sinful course, live the whole of their 
lives in sin. But the children of God, those who have given 
up their sins and turned to God, are new creatures — new in 
every respect. Their relationships, their aspirations, their 
desires, their efforts and aims, are all new, and their entire 
energies are bent on living a new life, on consecrating their 
bodies and spirits to the service of the living God ; and they 
scorn and hate a life of sin and turn from it as from poison. 
And there is as great a difference between these two courses 
of life as between midnight darkness and the noonday sun. 
Hence, in the very next verse he says : "In this the children 
of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: who- 
soever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he 
that loveth not his brother." This shows clearly that John 
was showing the contrast between the sinner, who gives his 
whole life to the wicked one, and the Christian, who gives 
his whole life to the service of God ; and he shows plainly 
that the man that does not give his whole life to the service 
of God is not in the light of God's truth at all, but is in dark- 
ness. "Whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God." 
"Whosoever is born of God sinneth not," does not give his 
life to a course of sin, but to the very best of his ability 
gives his life to the service of his Master. And there are 
men who embrace the gospel and have their names on 
.church books who will fail of heaven because they are not 
giving their lives to the service of God, but are still serving 
the wicked one. This is the burden of the entire connec- 
tion of the verse under consideration. The apostle was not 
intending to teach that the child of God will never through 
weakness or mistake do anything wrong; for in another 
place he teaches that all sin, all do wrong at times; but 
these unintentional wrongs may be forgiven, as John him- 
self teaches in the preceding part of this letter. His pur- 
pose, therefore, in verse 9 was to show that a child of God 
will give his life to the service of God and not to the world ; 
and if he gives it to the world, that proves he is not a true 
child of God. In the passage in chapter 5 the apostle was 
giving instruction regarding the sin unto death. He says 
all unrighteousness is sin, but there is a sin unto death; 
and his object is to show that a Christian, a true child of 
God, will not commit that sin. The sin unto death was, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 79 

and is, to presumptuously, willfully sin against the teach- 
ing of the Spirit of God, against the word of God; and 
"whosoever is born of God," a true follower of the Lamb, 
will never do such a thing ; for his whole desire is to obey, 
not to disobey, the Spirit's teaching. No danger of a true 
Christian committing the unpardonable sin. E. G. S. 

BREAD, THE, USED IN THE SUPPER. 

Will you please give your scriptural view in regard to the bread 
used at the Lord's Supper? Was it not the same as was used at the 
passover — that is, unleavened bread? For he (Jesus) desired to eat 
the passover with his disciples. 

I think there is no doubt but the Savior used unleavened 
bread in the institution of the Supper. Some think it not 
obligatory as an example ; but whether it is or not, it is safe 
to use it, and to it no objection can be raised. So I think 
all ought to unite on the safe ground. Leavened bread is 
used, too, because it takes a little trouble to prepare the 
unleavened bread. This careless indifference to prepare 
for the service of the Lord is reprehensible. Service for 
which we are willing to take no trouble will never benefit us. 

BREAK BREAD, WHAT TIME OF DAY SHOULD DISCI- 
PLES? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you answer through your pa- 
per the following question? We meet in Sunday school at nine 
o'clock and occupy about one hour's time, after which we have a Bible 
class; and after we have spent, say, a half hour, we attend to the 
breaking of bread, the large majority of the church preferring to 
have the Supper at that time. We have a brother, who is an elder, 
who will not commune with us because we take the Supper before 
twelve o'clock. Now, if the church is in error for taking the Supper 
at that time, we want to know it, and ask that you give us your views 
on this important question. 

We have known one or two men in life that would not 
take the Lord's Supper till after twelve o'clock, so that they 
might partake of it in the evening. They suppose, of 
course, that from twelve o'clock in the day it is evening; 
that evening begins at noon ; and that any time after twelve 
o'clock, or noon, would be evening. And the masses of the 
people in our country so regard it. But in a strict sense 
this is not the case. From twelve o'clock till six, or till 
about the going down of the sun, is properly called "after- 
noon;" and from about sundown till fully dark is evening; 
and when dark fully sets in, it is night. Evening, there- 
fore, properly speaking, is the period from about sundown 
till dark. And this is about the New Testament use of the 
word. In Matt. 20, when the eleventh-hour men had been 



80 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

called into the vineyard, we have then the following lan- 
guage: "So when even was come, the lord of the vineyard 
saith unto his steward, Call the laborers, and give them 
their hire, beginning from the last unto the first." The 
word even here is the word that elsewhere is rendered 
evening, and should be here, and shows that the evening, in 
the New Testament sense, was six o'clock, the close of the 
day. The Jews began the day then at six in the morning 
and closed it at six in the evening. These laborers worked 
till six, and this was called "evening." People are very 
much mistaken when they suppose the New Testament even- 
ing begins immediately after twelve in the day. But here 
is another example: "He answered and said unto them, 
When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather : for the 
sky is red." (Matt. 16: 2.) Evening in this passage 
means at sunset; for it is just as the sun has disappeared 
that we see the red appearance mentioned here, by which 
we judge of the weather, and we do not see it until about the 
setting of the sun. This, then, is evening in New Testa- 
ment style. The day, therefore, would be, in the sense given 
in the parable of the vineyard, from six in the morning till 
six in the evening, which ended the laborer's day. 

The language used in reference to breaking bread is: 
"And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples 
came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, 
ready to depart on the morrow." (Acts 20: 7.) Those 
disciples came together the first day of the week, not the 
first evening, and any time during the day would fill this 
passage. When the word of God means evening, we think 
it says so — as, for instance, in John 20: 19: "Then the 
same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when 
the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for 
fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and 
saith unto them, Peace be unto you." These disciples met 
in the evening of the first day of the week and closed the 
doors for fear of the Jews. They did not meet at this hour 
because they were required to do so, but they met and closed 
the doors for fear of the Jews. This indicates that the 
meeting was after sundown, when the day had closed and 
darkness was setting in. Thus the word of God is specific 
in these matters. When, therefore, it just says "the first 
day of the week," as in Acts 20 and 1 Cor. 16, we under- 
stand it to mean just what it says, and that when Christians 
meet to take the Supper, either in the forenoon or after- 
noon, they fill the bill. And one reason for meeting before 
twelve o'clock is that the mind is more vigorous and active 
than in the afternoon, and the very best strength of mind 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 81 

we have ought to be devoted to the Lord. But if we lived 
in a congregation where good brethren had scruples about 
eating the Supper in the forenoon and we could with any 
degree of convenience meet in the afternoon, we would be 
willing to gratify their scruples and meet with them in the 
afternoon, believing that any part of the day will do; but 
we give the preference to the forenoon, when we are more 
vigorous and active and can render more strength of devo- 
tion to the Lord. And if we meet in the afternoon, it would 
be wise to fast — that is, not eat dinner till after the Lord's 
Supper ; for people are poorly qualified to give their hearts 
to God just after a big dinner. 

But some say, again, that the Lord's Supper comes in the 
room and stead of the Jewish passover, and that, therefore, 
as the Jewish passover was attended to in the evening, so 
ought the Lord's Supper to be taken in the evening. There 
is not one word in the New Testament to indicate that 
breaking the loaf comes in the room and stead of the pass- 
over. We do not deny that the Jewish passover was in a 
sense typical of the Supper ; but the Lord's Supper is a new 
institution, like all the appointments of the New Testament, 
and does not come in the room and stead of anything. If 
it came in the room and stead of the passover, then we cer- 
tainly ought to keep the feast of unleavened bread for seven 
days in connection with it. We would have no right to 
leave that out if the Supper came instead of the passover, 
for nothing comes instead of that feast in the new institu- 
tion. But that would prove too much and make the Lord's 
Supper a mere Jewish ordinance, after all. But, just for 
argument's sake, suppose we grant that the Lord's Supper 
does come in the place of the passover, and that the Sup- 
per must, therefore, be attended to in the afternoon, then 
we must have the time exact and eat the Supper just at the 
time of day that the passover was eaten ; and now we will 
see when that was as nearly as we can. When God had 
told Moses what kind of a lamb to select for the passover, 
we have the following: "And ye shall keep it up until the 
fourteenth day of the same month : and the whole assembly 
of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. 
And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two 
side posts and on the upper doorpost of the houses, wherein 
they shall eat it." (Ex. 12: 6, 7.) They were to kill the 
lamb in the evening, but it is necessary to take a little pains 
to ascertain just exactly what is meant by the word even- 
ing in this passage. The learned claim that our version of 
this passage is defective, and that the rendering should be 
"between the two evenings" instead of "in the evening;" 



82 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and in the margin of some of our reference Bibles this ren- 
dering is given in preference to the common rendering. 
And now the question is: What are the two evenings 
spoken of in this new rendering? For the same rendering 
is given in the margin in a number of passages where the 
passover and the time "between the two evenings'' are 
given as the time of killing the lamb and not of eating it. 
The time of eating it is to be settled yet. And is this done 
in verse 8 of the above passage: "And they shall eat the 
flesh in that night, roast with fire?" This settles it that the 
eating was to be done in the night, not in the afternoon. 
The killing was to be done and finished by the time it was 
dark, and the eating was to be done in that night; and, 
therefore, if we are going to follow the time of eating that 
passover, we must eat the Lord's Supper in the night. The 
afternoon will be no better than the forenoon unless we 
wait till after dark, if we are to follow the rule of the pass- 
over. But the time of the passover has nothing to do with 
the time of the Lord's Supper. The two passages in the 
New Testament that mention the time of the assembling of 
the saints plainly express it on the first day of the week, not 
the first evening or night; and as the day properly includes 
the whole period from the time it is light in the morning 
till light begins to fade in the evening, we are satisfied that 
any time of the day will answer for breaking the loaf ; and, 
in fact, in New Testament language, the day may be 
counted from the time dawning begins, as Christ arose on 
the first day of the week, and he arose before it was fully 
light, as some of the Gospels indicate; and if it suited the 
congregations as well, we could see no objections to break- 
ing the loaf before sunup, as that time would be included 
in the first day of the week. We are satisfied that any part 
of the time, therefore, that may properly be called "the first 
day of the week" will do for breaking the loaf. But, as we 
said, we think the forenoon preferable. 

But we may be met with Acts 20 : 11 : "When he therefore 
was come up again, and had broken bread, and eaten, and 
talked a long while, even till break of day, so he departed." 
Some claim that this breaking of bread was the Lord's 
Supper. To our mind, there are some difficulties in the 
way of that. Those who claim that this breaking of bread 
was the Lord's Supper take the Jewish count of time in 
reckoning the day or period of twenty-four hours, begin- 
ning at sunset one evening and counting till sunset the next 
evening, and this makes the Jewish day of twenty-four 
hours. With this count, we would have to understand that 
those disciples at Troas met Saturday night, which, accord- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 83 

ing to the Jewish count, would begin the first day of the 
week. Then we would have it, if that breaking of bread 
was the Lord's Supper, that they did it in the night, a long 
while before day; for after breaking bread, he talked a long 
while, even to the break of day. He quit talking at break 
of day. Break of day is when it begins to get light ; hence, 
if that count of time be correct, they broke the loaf in the 
night, long before the time of day that Christ arose from 
the dead, according to the best count we can get of it. He 
certainly did rise on the first day of the week, by sunup at 
the farthest limit. And from an expression by Matthew 
we do not understand that the first day of the week began 
till about the time that Christ arose. He says : "In the end 
of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of 
the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see 
the sepulcher." Here the indications are that the first day 
of the week did not begin till the dawning of that morning 
on which he arose, and that he arose at the beginning of 
what in the New Testament is called "the first day of the 
week ;" and his rising on that day is what gives significance 
to the day, anyway. As the breaking of bread on this oc- 
casion occurred just after midnight, long before day, it oc- 
curred before the time that Christ arose, and according to 
Matthew, before the first day of the week began, if they met 
on Saturday night, as some think. And we do not believe 
that the disciples ever took the Supper before the time of 
day that Christ arose, which time, according to Matthew, 
begins the first day of the week ; but if we say they met in 
the evening of the first day of the week and then did not 
take the Supper till after midnight, and give the Jewish 
count, they took it on Monday morning, and not on the first 
day of the week at all; for if the Jewish count is correct 
in this matter, and the first day begins at dark Satur- 
day night, then the first day would end at dark Sunday 
night; hence, if they met on Sunday evening, they broke 
the loaf on Monday morning, if the breaking of bread was 
the Lord's Supper. And, besides, count the time as you 
may, if that breaking of bread was the Lord's Supper, it 
forever kills the idea of taking it in the evening; for this 
was between midnight and day, and that part of the night 
never was called "evening" by anybody, Jews or Gentiles. 
The only scriptural conclusion, therefore, to which we can 
come is that as those disciples met on the first day of the 
week to break bread, they broke it that day, and then, as 
the meeting continued all night, they had some sort of re- 
freshment after midnight, and that is what in that place is 
ealled "the breaking of bread." We have something like it 



84 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

in Luke 24, where Jesus sat at meat with the two disciples 
at Emmaus. It is said there that "he took bread, and 
blessed it, and brake." The Greek word rendered bread 
here is the same one rendered bread in both instances. In 
Acts 20 and in this case it was not the Lord's Supper, but 
an ordinary meal, so far as we know. He sat with them at 
meat, signifying an ordinary meal ; and so we think it was 
when Paul broke bread after midnight at Troas, and that 
they had taken the Lord's Supper before that time. 

We do not, therefore, know a single passage in the word 
of God that signifies that the evening is any better time to 
take the Lord's Supper than the morning. The church of 
God is a new institution, and the first day of the week is a 
new day entirely, and the Lord's Supper is a new institu- 
tion, and is not governed as to its time by any that pre- 
ceded. Under the teaching of the apostles, the disciples 
met on the first day of the week to attend to this ordinance, 
and that is the time to meet now. E. G. S. 

CAIN AND ABEL, HOW DID, KNOW WHAT TO DO? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: A week ago Brother J. E. Scobey 
preached here and made a strong point in favor of obedience to God, 
having under consideration the offerings made by Cain and Abel. I 
have been asked several times since how Cain and Abel knew that God 
required of them an offering, and how they knew what kind of an 
offering God did require of them, and whether the kind of offering 
they should make was commanded. 

It is said of Abel that "by faith" he offered unto God "a 
more excellent [that is, more acceptable] sacrifice than 
Cain." The fact that Abel made his offering by faith gives 
an easy clue to the matter. Paul says in Rom. 10 that faith 
comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. Now, 
since faith comes by hearing the word of God, where there 
is no word of God, there is no faith. In order, therefore, 
for Abel to make an offering by faith, he must have had 
the word of God on the subject. He must have been told 
what sort of an offering to make, and then must have of- 
fered it just as the word of the Lord directed, or he could 
not have offered it by faith. If he had varied in the least 
particular from the Lord's direction, it would not have been 
by faith, but by his own wisdom. Whenever man deliber- 
ately turns aside from anything that God appoints and does 
something else instead, he sets the wisdom and authority of 
God aside and sets up for himself. This is just what Cain 
did. He did not have enough of faith in God to do just 
what he said, while the excellency of Abel's offering was 
that his faith in God was strong enough to lead him in 
every step that the Lord directed. He did all that the Lord 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 85 

commanded, and did it as the Lord required; and it takes 
all this to do anything by faith. It is quite certain, there- 
fore, that the Lord spoke and .told Cain and Abel to make 
offerings to him, and told them what kind to make, and that 
Abel did exactly as the Lord directed, while Cain went his 
own way and acted upon his own wisdom in the matter in- 
stead of doing as the Lord commanded. 

We must not conclude that because an account of what 
God said to Cain and Abel is not given, therefore he did not 
say anything. Enough is said in the Bible regarding the 
principles upon which the two men acted to show that he 
did speak to them and told them exactly what to do, and 
that Abel obeyed just what God said, while Cain went his 
own way. It is evident that all that God said to men in 
the first age of the world, in the patriarchal age, is not re- 
corded in the book of Genesis ; but enough has been recorded 
to let us understand the principles upon which God dealt 
with them and upon which they acted. In all ages and dis- 
pensations it has been necessary for men to do exactly what 
the Lord required in order to enjoy his blessings ; and in all 
cases where people turned aside to go their own way, as did 
Cain, they failed to receive any blessings from the Lord; 
and these are the principles upon which men must act now 
if they would be blessed of God. E. G. S. 

CAIN'S OFFERING REJECTED, WHY? 

Brother Lipscomb: Please answer the following: "And in process 
of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground 
an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the first- 
lings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect 
unto Abel and to his offering; but unto Cain and to his offering he 
had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance 
fell." Why was Cain's offering not accepted? Paul says: "By faith 
Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain." What 
I want to know is this : Was it because he did not have faith that his 
offering was not accepted, or was it because he did not offer a blood 
offering? Was it not required of him to offer a blood sacrifice in or- 
der that it might be acceptable? 

Our information on this subject is not as specific as we 
might like ; yet we might get a pretty clear idea by a little 
patient study and examination. What commands were 
given Cain and Abel, we are not informed, or whether any 
were. Yet Paul says that faith comes by hearing, and 
hearing by the word of God — that is, we come to believe in 
God through hearing of him. We believe this thing is 
right, because God has told us so ; that wrong, because God 
told us it was wrong, or because he failed to tell us it is 
right. Sometimes a failure to tell us a thing is right is 
equivalent to telling that it is wrong. A failure to author- 



86 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ize a thing is equivalent to a prohibition of it. Paul says 
that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
God. If Abel had faith in the acceptability of his offering, 
it must have been because God had commanded it ; if Cain 
lacked faith, it must have been because God had failed to 
command it. God's word is the only basis of faith in such 
matters. Whether or not God had specifically announced 
the great truth that without the shedding of blood there is 
no remission, we have no means of telling. Evidently he 
commanded them to bring the lamb, and that command was 
in accordance with the great principle of remission through 
the shedding of blood. We think it clear that the require- 
ment of the sacrifice of the bleeding victim was specifically 
made. The circumstances clearly indicate that other of- 
ferings were not prohibited. He reasoned that what is not 
prohibited is allowable, and so brought the offering that 
accorded with his own judgment instead of following that 
which was required. D. L. 

CALLED TO PREACH, WHO ARE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please answer the fol- 
lowing questions: Who are called to preach, and how may they know 
it? Does 2 Tim. 2: 4 apply to ministers who are merchandising or 
engaged in any secular business? 

It depends wholly on what is meant by the term called. 
If it is meant who is called and qualified as the apostles 
were, we answer : None. No man is specifically called and 
qualified now as were the apostles in primitive times. 

Whose duty is it to preach? It is every person's duty to 
do all he or she can to save man and honor God. And 
preaching, in the common use of the term, is not the only 
means used to save men. An honest or upright walk be- 
fore God and man, a kind and beneficent spirit that seeks 
opportunities to do good and benefit the human family, is 
an effective method of preaching or of teaching men and 
honoring God. 

Each man is possessed of some talent that he is under 
obligation to cultivate and use for the good of man. A 
man must not only have a talent, but he must have a desire 
for a work ; he must have a taste for it. A man that has 
no taste for teaching people the word of God can never suc- 
cessfully teach them. Taste leads to desire. A man had 
better lack talent than to lack taste for a work that he en- 
gages in. He is more apt to succeed when he has taste and 
is lacking in talent than when he has talent but no taste for 
a work. 

Then the first requisite for a preacher or teacher is a de- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 87 

sire for a work. If he has no desire for it, all the talent in 
the world would not enable him to succeed. If he has a 
desire, earnest, true, a taste for such work, he will be found 
at it whenever and wherever opportunity offers. A man 
that never makes any effort to preach or teach until he is 
sent is not fit to send. When he has a desire and finds him- 
self by this taste or desire led to the work, it is his duty to 
consult with the discreet and prudent brethren, especially 
with the elderly ones, in reference to their judgment of his 
talent and ability. He is the judge of the taste; they, of 
the talent. If they think he has talent when rightly used, 
they ought to encourage him to the work, giving him pru- 
dent and encouraging advice. When he has proved him- 
self to their satisfaction, they ought to sanction his work. 
He then may be said to be called to preach. Of course, 
where there are no elders, he is left to his own taste and 
judgment, and should act cautiously and modestly, but de- 
terminedly, in the matter. 

It is difficult to tell exactly what is meant by 2 Tim. 2:4: 
"No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs 
of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him 
to be a soldier." Paul did not mean that he must not en- 
gage in labor to make a living when it is necessary. He did 
that himself, and said he did it that he might in this be an 
example to others. He admonished Timothy to follow his 
example. We think it means that he should not entangle 
himself in business associations with men of the world or 
with unbelievers in such a manner as to be controlled or in- 
fluenced by them. We should not enter into worldly asso- 
ciations which demand our service, our time, and the obli- 
gations which may seriously interfere with our duty to 
God. It means the same as : "Be not unequally yoked with 
unbelievers." It refers to all who war a good warfare for 
Christ. It is just as applicable to those laboring in other 
callings as to those preaching or teaching the word of life. 
He who labors for God and man in other callings is just as 
much a soldier of Christ as he who preaches. D. L. 

"CALLING WHEREIN HE WAS CALLED," HOW ABIDE 
IN? 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) In 1 Cor. 7: 20-24 we read: "Let every 
man abide in the same calling wherein he was called. . . . Breth- 
ren, let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God." Of 
course we know that a man who is engaged in the saloon business, 
gambling, racing, and other disreputable callings, cannot abide in them 
and with God at the same time. What do you think verses 17-25 
teach? (2) Please give also your idea concerning John 13: 8-10, es- 
pecially verse 10. Do you think that the "Living Oracles," otherwise 



88 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the translation of Doddridge, Campbell, and Macknight, and the "Em- 
phatic Diaglot," as also the King James Version, translate this cor- 
rectly? Do you think that the Savior had any reference whatever to 
baptism? 

1. The context, it seems to me, shows clearly that he 
meant in whatever relations — natural, social, or civil — a 
man is, when he is called, he should not seek to change it. 
He illustrates the meaning: If a man is a servant, he 
should not mind it. He should serve God as a servant and 
not seek to change his state. If he is called as a Jew or cir- 
cumcised, he ought to be content as a Jew or circumcised 
person to serve the Lord ; if he is called as a Gentile, as a 
Gentile he should serve God. This is illustrating that if 
he is called in an unmarried state, it was well for him to 
so remain if he could restrain his lusts ; but if he was con- 
verted being a married man, he should not seek to free him- 
self from the married state. In whatever state he is, 
rather than a special employment, let him remain. 

2. This is an account of the observance of the passover. 
They had to bathe themselves as a cleansing preparatory 
to eating the passover. "And the Jews' passover was nigh 
at hand : and many went out of the country up to Jerusa- 
lem before the passover, to purify themselves." (John 11 : 
55.) The purification took place before the eating of the 
passover, at or before the beginning of passover week. But 
after this bathing, which was done some days before the 
eating of the passover, in passing to and fro, they were 
liable to have the feet defiled, and at the table the feet must 
be washed. Jesus washed their feet to fit them for eating 
the passover. Hence, Jesus said: "He that is washed, or 
has been purified, needs now but to have his feet washed, 
but is clean, purified, every whit, or wholly." Their for- 
mer bathing when they first came to Jerusalem had cleansed 
them, and now the feet have been cleansed of any chance de- 
filement after the purification ; so he is wholly clean. There 
is but one thing in the way of this explanation — that is, the 
Common Version reads, "and supper being ended ;" the Re- 
vised Version says, "during supper;" but the Bible Union 
Version reads, "supper being served," or made ready. The 
facts show this last to be the condition. When supper was 
served, they all placed themselves around the table, but 
could not eat without washing the feet as a certainty against 
defilement. In this condition it was proper for them to 
wash the feet of each other. This was the office of younger 
or servants. The least or youngest among them should per- 
form this service for the older. This aroused the dispute 
as to which was the greatest, as told by Luke (22 : 24) . To 






BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 89 

reprove and shame them for this contention, the Lord and 
Master himself washed their feet. He came first to Peter, 
and he vowed the Lord should not so humble himself as to 
wash his feet. Then the conversation given took place. 
"And there arose a contention among them, which of them 
should be accounted greatest. And he said to them, The 
kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them ; and they 
who exercise authority over them are called benefactors. 
But ye are not so : but let the greatest among you become as 
the younger, and he that is chief as he that serves. For 
which is greater, he that reclines at table, or he that serves ? 
Is not he that reclines at table? But I am in the midst of 
you as he that serves" — referring to the fact that he was 
then acting the part of a servant in washing their feet 
while they reclined at table. Not many likely will receive 
the explanation ; yet I have seldom felt more sure of the cor- 
rectness of a position than I do of this. Jesus, who was 
chief among them, performed the service of a servant in 
washing their feet. D. L. 

CATECHISM, A, ANSWERED. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We have an interesting Sunday 
school going on at this place. We have a catechism in our school by 
Alexander M. Thigpen, edited by W. G. E. Cunningham. When we 
got to the thirty-fourth lesson, I opposed its being taught in school. 
I told them that I did not want my children taught that lesson, and 
why? Because it was not so; and I went on to prove it was not so 
from the Bible. The following are the questions and answers I op- 
pose: 

"Q. With whom did God establish his church? 

"A. With Abraham. 

"Q. What was the sign of membership? 

"A. Circumcision. 

"Q. Were children admitted into the church? 

"A. They were. 

"Q. Who gave them this right? 

"A. God. 

"Q. Has he ever taken that right from them? 

"A. He has not. 

"Q. Are children, then, still entitled to membership? 

"A. They are. 

"Q. What is now the sign of church membership? 

"A. Baptism. 

"Q. Are children entitled to baptism? 

"A. Certainly they are. 

"Q. What becomes of children who die in infancy? 

"A. They are saved. 

"Q. What words of Jesus prove this? 

"A. 'Of such is the kingdom of heaven.' " 

It is very strange to me that a man will teach such doctrine. Will 
you please give us your views on all the questions in the thirty-fourth 
lesson? 






90 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The teaching of this catechism regarding the time of the 
establishment of the church of God is without one syllable 
of foundation in the word of God. Christ was promised to 
Abraham when God said to him: "In thy seed shall all the 
nations of the earth be blessed." But that was only a 
promise in the far-off future, and nothing that in any sense 
resembled the establishment of the church of God. Cir- 
cumcision never belonged to the church of God in any way 
whatever, and, therefore, was never the sign of anything in 
that church. It was given to Abraham and incorporated 
into the law of Moses, but ended when the law ended. The 
infants of Jewish parents were born in the Jewish church, 
and circumcision had nothing to do with making them 
members of that covenant. It was a mark of distinction 
as to nationality, and without it no Jew could live among 
his people. The idea that baptism comes in the room of 
circumcision, and that, therefore, baptism belongs to in- 
fants, as circumcision did, is utterly without foundation in 
the word of God. Baptism comes in its own place, and be- 
longs to an entirely new institution, and is for those who 
are old enough to be taught the gospel and to believe it. 
Infants need no baptism, and were never required to be 
baptized by the authority of God. Infant baptism is wholly 
human — not one word of authority for it in the word of 
God; and it is certainly not safe to teach for doctrine the 
commandments of men. All the answers except the last 
two are wholly human — wholly the opinions of men, and 
not the word of God ; and teaching the opinions of men in- 
stead of the word of God has brought about the divisions 
and strifes that now harass the religious world. That in- 
fants, dying in their infancy, are perfectly safe, is plainly 
taught by the Savior in the above language; but the other 
answers are human, and those who follow them are follow- 
ing men instead of God. E. G. S. 

CATHOLICS, THE, AND THE BIBLE. 

I am living now in a Catholic neighborhood, who claim that the 
Protestant Bible as we have it now is a mistranslation of the true Bi- 
ble. They also claim to have the original work and all their trans- 
lations up to the present time, and no other church has them. Please 
give us light on this subject. Please trace up from the original man- 
uscript. 

The Catholics have no copies or translations of the Bible 
that are not open to the whole world and are known to all 
scholars who choose to investigate them. What is known 
as the Vulgate Version has from the fifth century been the 
authorized version of the Catholic Church. It was a trans- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 91 

lation made by Jerome in the early part of the fifth century. 
Many changes had crept into the copies extant at that time. 
Jerome gave his time to the study and the correction of 
these manuscripts. Damasus, bishop of Rome, requested 
him to revise and correct the current versions. This he 
did. After much opposition and many corrections by other 
hands, it came into general use, and has continued as the 
standard of the Romish Church until this day. It has, as 
modern criticism advanced, been improved and corrected. 
But it is substantially the same. The Vulgate is in Latin. 
It is the foundation of all the modern translations into the 
living languages of Europe and America. As modern in- 
vestigation, hunting up the different translations and man- 
uscripts, the diligent comparison of these, has brought to 
light errors and the original text has been more satisfac- 
torily settled, the corrections have been made in these 
modern translations. The Latin version of Jerome has 
also to some extent been corrected. Our Common Version 
is substantially from the Latin Vulgate. 

The Catholic translations vary but little from the Prot- 
estant, except as to ecclesiastical terms, which have not 
been translated in the Catholic and only partially in the 
Protestant. The word repent is always in the Catholic 
version translated do penance. The phraseology is not so 
modernized as the Protestant versions. The answer of Pe- 
ter at Pentecost is translated in the Romish version: "Do 
penance and be every one of you baptized in the name of 
Jesus Christ for remission of sins, and you shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost." 

The Catholics have been slow to make translations into 
the tongues of the common people, holding that they are in- 
competent to understand the Bible without the interpreta- 
tion of the priesthood. But the scholars among the Cath- 
olics do not differ as to the original text or the translation 
from the Protestant scholars. The differences in transla- 
tion arise from the prohibition by the church of the trans- 
lation of terms affecting the ordinances and officials of the 
Romish Church. Some years ago I was asked to discuss 
the claims of the Romish Church with one of their bishops. 
I agreed to do it, and agreed to use their translation, claim- 
ing only that I should have the right to prove the true mean- 
ing of some untranslated terms by their own scholars. 

Catholics sometimes claim that they have been the keep- 
ers of the Bible because some of the manuscripts have been 
found in their old monasteries. The claim to those who 
know the facts is a reproach and shame instead of a glory. 
Those old manuscripts, as we stated a week or two since, 



92 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

are not half so valuable as the translations of the second 
century, but they are valuable. They were just left neg- 
lected for hundreds of years, hid from the world, until 
Protestants revived the spirit of investigation. Take, for 
instance, the Vatican manuscript. It had been in the Vat- 
ican library in Rome for hundreds of years. The popes re- 
fused to publish it themselves or to let others do it. Two 
very imperfect and incorrect copies of it were published by 
priests. Finally, Tischendorf gained access to it and copied 
it. The pope of Rome published a facsimile copy of it in 
1868, but from the plates prepared by Tischendorf. Had 
they not been pressed by Protestant investigation, it would 
likely have been yet hidden from the public. As many 
manuscripts have been found with the Greek Church as 
among the Roman. The Sinaitic manuscript was found in 
the monastery on Mount Sinai by Tischendorf, and the 
emperor of Russia published it at his own expense — more 
liberal in spirit than the Romish head. 

"CHANCE," DOES 1 PET. 4: 5, 6 TEACH ANOTHER? 

Brother Sewell: Please explain 1 Pet. 4: 5, 6 for the benefit of our 
religious neighbors. Some claim that God gives them another chance. 

The passage follows : "Who shall give account to him that 
is ready to judge the living and the dead. For unto this 
end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they 
might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but 
live according to God in the spirit." Verse 5 speaks of the 
people that were speaking evil of Christians, to whom Pe- 
ter was writing, because they would run into the excesses of 
wickedness that they themselves were indulging, who he 
said should give an account to him that was to be the judge 
of the living and the dead. In 2 Tim. 4 : 1 we are told that 
Christ will be the judge of the living and the dead. That 
means that Christ will be the great Judge of all, both the 
living and the dead, at the last day — that is, all that shall 
have died will be raised and judged then, and all that are 
still living till then will also be judged then by Jesus. In 
verse 6 we are told that the gospel was preached to them 
that are dead, which does not mean that the preaching was 
done after they died, but while they were living, just as the 
Spirit of Christ went and preached through Noah to the 
antediluvians while the ark was being prepared. (1 Pet. 
3: 19, 20.) We have no account that any preaching was 
ever done or ever will be done to anybody after death. The 
judgment comes after death, but no preaching then, so far 
as the word of God records. The people to whom the gos- 
pel has been or ever shall be preached will be judged ac- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 93 

cording to their treatment of the gospel. Those that obey 
the gospel as written until death will be saved, while those 
that disobey it will be lost. In the case of the rich man and 
Lazarus, the rich man cried for help after death, but failed. 
I do not know a single passage that gives a particle of as- 
surance of any second chance for salvation. Those that 
refuse to obey God in this world are doomed to the loss of 
the soul in eternity. The apostle said: "And inasmuch as 
it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this cometh 
judgment," etc. (Heb. 9: 27.) This clearly shows that 
the very next thing people meet after death is the judg- 
ment. No intimation, therefore, for a second chance. In 
this life is the only time and place to prepare for eternal 
life. Those, therefore, that neglect that die without hope. 
When the gospel is preached to men in this life and they 
obey it, that gives them a chance to live after God in the 
spirit here and in eternity ; but if they disobey it in this life, 
they die in their sins and will be lost in eternity. This is 
the teaching of the Bible. 

"CHARIOT," WHO COMMANDED THE, TO STOP? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Who commanded the chariot to 
stand still— Philip or the eunuch? This is a simple question, but we 
feel interested enough to want your opinion. 

We give it as our opinion that the eunuch is the one that 
commanded the chariot to stand still. He was the owner 
of it and had the right to command it. It is most reason- 
able to conclude that as he was a nobleman, occupying so 
high a position as he did, he had a driver along with him 
to drive his chariot and wait upon him, and that he com- 
manded this driver to hold up until he could be baptized. 

E. G. S. 

CHARITY, WHAT IS? 

Brother Lipscomb : In 1 Cor. 13 : 13 Paul says : "And now abideth 
faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." 
Having heard different opinions as to what is here meant by charity, 
will you please give yours? 

Charity is love. The Greek word agapee is used about 
one hundred and twenty times in the New Testament. It 
is translated in our version twenty-seven or twenty-eight 
times by the word charity; in all other cases but one, by the 
word love. It is translated once by the word dear. Char- 
ity and love in the Bible are precisely the same thing. It 
would have added something to the clearness of our trans- 
lation if it had been translated love every time. Love and 
charity as used in the Bible are precisely the same thing. 



94 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Love is not a blind passion; it is not magnetic attraction. 
It is the doing of good to others in whatever position they 
are found. It leads to a faithful performance of duty in 
every relationship of life. It makes us honor and obey God, 
submit to our rulers, do good to our fellow man in whatever 
he needs, and live soberly, righteously, and godly in this 
world. "This is love, that we walk after his command- 
ments." (2 John 6.) D. L. 

CHECKERS, ETC., PLAYING. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it sinful for Christians to play such games 
as checkers, dominoes, crokinole, croquet, etc.? 

All recreation is not to be denied to Christians. Any 
recreation is sinful when carried to excess, when it leads to 
the neglect of the important affairs of life and the improve- 
ment of our minds or doing good to others. Some recre- 
ations are sinful because of their associations. Some are 
associated with gambling, lead one into the company of 
gamblers, and tempt those engaging in them or seeing them 
to gamble. All such are sinful and are to be avoided. But 
the games mentioned are not subject to these objections, so 
far as I know. They are no more corrupting in their in- 
fluence than much of the idle conversation carried on by 
old and young; and if too great time or attention is not 
given them and if not allowed to interfere with the serious 
duties of life, they are not necessarily sinful. 

"CHILD ONE HUNDRED YEARS OLD." 

Brother Seivell: Please explain Isa. 65: 20, with regard to the 
child dying at one hundred years of age, "but the sinner being a hun- 
dred years old shall be accursed." 

The passage you quote is a figurative and prophetic ex- 
pression and had reference to some future blessings that 
would come upon the Jewish people. At the time of this 
prophecy the Jewish people had gone very far into wicked- 
ness and were to suffer severe chastisements, as other pas- 
sages from the prophets show ; but after a while they would 
repent and be delivered from these chastisements, and 
would return to their own land, and would again enjoy the 
fruits of the labor of their own hands, and would be abun- 
dantly blessed in many ways, and among other blessings 
would enjoy happy and long lives again, and would not be 
cut off in childhood or youth unless they should again go 
into sin. In that case they would again be cursed ; the man 
that would go into sin at a hundred years old would again 
be cursed. Long life was considered a great blessing among 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 95 

the Jews and was promised to the faithful among them. 
The passage you name either refers to the blessings of this 
sort that would come upon the Jews when they should hum- 
ble themselves and turn to the Lord and should serve him 
faithfully again, or else it has reference to spiritual Israel, 
to Christianity, and the great blessings that would then be 
enjoyed in that by all that would embrace it and be faithful 
in it. But likely the stronger probability is that the pas- 
sage was intended to be applied to the blessings that would 
be enjoyed by them when they would forsake their sins and 
should return to faithfulness to the law of Moses. But in 
either case the principle is the same, showing that the bless- 
ings of God are always to the faithful. This principle is 
manifested in the dealings of God from the garden of Eden 
on down. Always when people have been submissive to 
God and have done his will, no matter what dispensation 
they were under, they were abundantly blessed by Jehovah ; 
but the face of the Lord has always been, and always will 
be, against those that do evil, that refuse his will. 

CHRIST'S BIRTHDAY. 

Brother Sewell: Is there any evidence in the Bible or in history 
that shows December 25 to be the birthday of Christ? 

There is no divine testimony that Christ was born on 
what is known as Christmas Day — December 25. No one 
can settle definitely the day of his birth from the New Tes- 
tament. Nor is there any human testimony known to us 
that settles it. These facts indicate plainly to Us that it is 
not important that we should know the day, or it would 
have been put to record in the New Testament. The fact 
that he was born, the place where he was born, and the 
circumstances surrounding that wonderful birth are fully 
and prominently given ; and if the day of his birth had been 
important for us to know, it would certainly have been fixed. 

CHRIST, FORSAKING ALL FOR. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Matt. 10: 34, 35 
for the benefit of our class at this place, and oblige. 

It simply means that frequently in a family some will 
be converted to Christ, while others will not. Those con- 
verted will be so earnest and zealous for Christ they will 
separate from wife, husband, brother, sister, mother, 
daughter, for the sake of Christ. Those who oppose will 
be so bitter they will persecute even those of their own 
house to the death. Also, that the preaching of Christ, al- 
though he is the Prince of Peace, will produce these strifes ; 



96 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and that although his religion will finally bring peace — 
lasting and true peace — it will gain that peace only through 
conflict and strife, not unfrequently among those of the 
same family- — the same flesh and blood. It shows that the 
religion of Christ, when it takes a firm hold upon the heart 
of an individual, is stronger than any fleshly tie. D. L. 

CHRIST, HOW DO WE GET INTO? 

A Baptist brother and myself have disagreed upon the question 
as to how a penitent believer gets into Christ. I take the position 
that he is baptized into Christ. He takes issue with me, saying that 
if he were baptized into Christ he would give offense to the congre- 
gation, and they would withdraw from him; that he needs to be bap- 
tized into Christ the second time before being in Christ again. 

The Bible is a safer teacher than any of our reasoning or 
theories. It says: "So many of us as were baptized into 
Christ were baptized into his death." (Rom. 6:3.) "Ye 
are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as 
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on 
Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) He says here we come into his 
death by being baptized into him. We become children of 
God by faith in Christ Jesus by being baptized into Christ, 
and so putting on Christ Jesus as our Savior, just as Noah 
became an heir of righteousness through faith by building 
the ark and entering into it to the saving of his family. 
Peter likens the salvation of Noah through the ark to the 
salvation that comes to the believer through baptism. 
Then faith makes us desire Christ, and repentance fits us 
for him. We enter Christ, we put on Christ, in baptism. 
That is the clear teaching of the Bible. But does this ne- 
cessitate a rebaptism if we sin? Human reason may say 
so, but the Bible says: "Repent of your sin and pray God 
that the sinful thoughts may be forgiven; and if we con- 
fess our sins, God is just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse 
us from all unrighteousness." We apprehend the mistake 
in the reasoning is to suppose that when a man sins he is 
out of Christ. This is a mistake. When a man in Christ 
sins, he is not condemned as an alien sinner, but as an un- 
faithful and unworthy child of God. A man once in Christ 
will be dealt with as unfaithful to his vows, as an unworthy 
child, and will be cast out at the last day. 

CHRIST'S ETERNAL EXISTENCE. 

1. Did Christ exist as a divine person, separate and apart from 
the Father, before the foundation of the world? 

2. What are the principles of the doctrine of Christ as mentioned 
in Heb. 6:1? Some call them "first principles" and say it means the 
law of Moses. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 97 

1. I do not see how one who studies the Scriptures can 
doubt the existence of Christ as a distinct person before 
the world was created. Read John 1 : 1-3 : "In the begin- 
ning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the 
Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. 
All things were made by him; and without him was not 
anything made that was made." Verse 14 : "And the Word 
was made flesh, and dwelt among us." Then we are told 
(Col. 1: 15, 16) : "Who is the image of the invisible God, 
the firstborn of every creature : for by him were all things 
created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth. . . . 
All things were created by him, and for him." He existed 
before the heavens or the earth were created, and they 
were created by him and for him. (See also 1 Cor. 8:6; 
Eph. 3:9; Heb. 1:2.) There can be no doubt as to the 
distinct existence of Jesus as the Word before the world 
was. '^ 

2. To determine what is meant by principles of the doc- 
trine of Christ is more difficult. The only way to deter- 
mine such questions is to examine their connection. The 
division into chapters and verses often hinders this. In 
verse 12 of the preceding chapter he tells them : "For when 
for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one 
teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles 
of God." This turning back and their need to be taught 
again "the first principles of the oracles of God" is the 
same thing they are now- admonished to leave. The same 
thing is referred to in Heb. 6 : 4-6 : "For [in consideration 
of what has been said] it is impossible for those who were 
once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, 
. ... if they shall fall away, to renew them again unto 
repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of 
God afresh, and put him to an open shame." 

To lay again the foundation of repentance from God and 
of faith in Christ is to turn back to the condition they were 
in before they repented and believed, or to turn back to Ju- 
daism and its practices. Then he admonishes them if one 
turns back from Christ to Judaism, it is impossible to re- 
new him again to repentance. So I conclude it is turning 
back from Christ to Judaism which was the foundation de- 
manding repentance and faith. 

CHRIST, WHO CRUCIFIED? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: In our Sunday school this morn- 
ing the question arose as to who it was that crucified the Savior. W. 
M. Whitlock, a Baptist minister, contended that the Jews did it; while 
I contended that the Jews delivered him up to the Gentiles, and they 
crucified him. He admits that baptism was for the remission of sins 



98 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

to the Jews, to show their repentance for crucifying the Savior ; that 
we Gentiles had nothing to do with the crucifying of the Savior; and 
he gives to us the gift of the Holy Ghost for the remission of sins be- 
fore baptism, referring us to the house of Cornelius. Now, it stands 
us in hand to prove that the Gentiles did crucify the Savior. The 
above-named Baptist requested me to write to you for an explanation 
on the subject. Also please explain 1 Pet. 2:8; John 17: 2. 

The Jews at the time of the crucifixion were a conquered 
people. The Roman government had subjected the Jewish 
nation and appointed a governor, or procurator. Pontius 
Pilate was the governor. He had a band of soldiers to 
maintain the Roman authority and repress all disorders in 
society. These soldiers were Gentiles. 

The Jews, in their subjugated state, were not allowed to 
punish any one with death. They could scourge them and 
inflict minor punishments, but could not punish capitally. 
Whenever a case was worthy of capital punishment, the rul- 
ers of the land — the Gentiles — must try and execute them. 
Pilate, wishing to free himself from the case, said: "Take 
ye him, and judge him according to your law." They were 
determined upon his death. It was not lawful for them to 
put him to death; so they declined to take him, but re- 
sponded : "It is not lawful for us to put any man to death." 
(John 18: 31.) They were anxious to crucify him or to 
have it done. Pilate said: "My hands be free from the 
blood of this just person." They said : "Crucify him, cru- 
cify him : his blood be upon us and our children." That is, 
"it is unlawful for us to crucify him, or we would willingly 
do it. We will bear all the responsibility for the deed if 
you will have it done." So the Jews instigated and secured 
his crucifixion. 

The course that was taken is clearly presented in Matt. 
20 : 18, 19 : "Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of 
man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the 
scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, and shall 
deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to 
crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again." The 
Jews brought him before the chief priests and scribes. 
They decided he was worthy of death; but as they had no 
power to put any man to death, they set about extorting his 
condemnation and crucifixion from the Gentiles, their rul- 
ers. 

With this agrees exactly the history of his crucifixion. 
The Jews in their council first decided he was worthy of 
death. They then fiercely demanded his crucifixion of Pi- 
late. He finally yields, signs his death warrant, and de- 
livers him to the soldiers to execute. "Then released he 
Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 99 

delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the gov- 
ernor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto 
him the whole band of the soldiers. And they [the sol- 
diers] stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe." (Matt. 
27 : 26-28.) They (the soldiers) platted a crown of thorns ; 
they (the soldiers) spat upon him; they (the soldiers) took 
the robe off, put his own clothes upon him, and led him 
away to crucify him ; they (the soldiers) gave him vinegar 
mingled with gall; they (the soldiers) crucified him and 
parted his garments, casting lots. 

Read connectively Matt. 28 : 27-35, and no one can doubt 
that the soldiers crucified him. Read Mark 15 : 15-25, and 
it is equally clear that the soldiers did all these acts of ridi- 
cule and persecution and crucified him. Luke's account is 
not so clear. He says Pilate "delivered Jesus to their will ;" 
it says they took him, without saying who they were. He 
gives an account of their scourging him to the place and 
crucifying him, parting his garments, etc., without saying 
who they were. He introduces the people in contrast with 
those who had crucified him, then the soldiers again as of- 
fering the vinegar. Read Luke 23 : 24-36. 

John (19: 23) says that "the soldiers,, when they had 
crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to 
every soldier a part," and then cast lots for his seamless 
coat. Four soldiers — a quaternion — waited on Pilate. To 
these he delivered Jesus, who then called the "whole band 
of soldiers." These same soldiers broke the legs of the 
thieves crucified with him, and one of the soldiers pierced 
his side with a spear. It was the soldiers — Gentiles — who 
did the deed at the instigation and persuasion of the Jews. 
So both were equally guilty of crucifying the Son of God. 

The Jewish mode of punishing with death was by ston- 
ing. See all orders for death in Deuteronomy were to stone 
to death. Stephen, killed by the Jews, was stoned to death ; 
Paul was stoned by the Jews till they thought him dead. 
The Romans crucified ; it was their style of punishing with 
death. 

Peter on Pentecost charged the Jews with betraying and 
crucifying the Lord of glory ; but they were guilty simply 
because they had instigated and abetted the murder and 
were the more guilty party. 

While this is all true, it is not at all necessary to main- 
tain it in order to meet the difficulties presented by your 
Baptist. There is not a word of foundation for his theory 
in the Bible. It is a mere pretext to evade the truth. The 
Bible nowhere says the Holy Ghost was given for the remis- 
sion or pardon of sins to either Jew or Gentile. So the 



100 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Spirit was given to inspire those receiving it that they 
might know the will of God before the New Testament was 
written out and to call to their remembrance all things Je- 
sus had taught, to guide them into all truth, and to testify 
of Christ. It was given to Cornelius, the first Gentile con- 
vert, and those at his house, to convince the Jews that the 
Gentiles were to be received into the church of God as fel- 
low heirs on the same terms with the Jews. (Acts 10 : 47 ; 
15: 7.) The Bible says the words spoken by Peter to the 
house of Cornelius were the means by which "thou and all 
thy house shall be saved." (Acts 11 : 14.) 

Besides, it is specifically declared that God put no differ- 
ence between Jew and Gentile. He concluded them all alike 
under sin, that he might have mercy upon all. The same 
conditions of mercy offered the one were to the other. It 
takes something more than the mere assertion of a poor 
mortal to annul these sacred truths of God. 

The passage, 1 Pet. 2 : 8, means that those who disobeyed 
God stumbled at Jesus as the Son of God, rejected this 
truth, and all who do not obey him are appointed to stumble 
at this truth. 

John 2: 17 means just what it says. Those whom God 
had specifically given to Jesus were his apostles, as we may 
learn from verses 8 and 12 of the same chapter. But it is 
doubtless true that God has given to his Son all who believe 
on his name through the words of the apostles. Of the 
twelve apostles, one was left of the number who believed on 
him through the words of the apostles. All that are not 
faithful unto death will be lost, that the Scriptures may be 
fulfilled. The Scriptures foretold one of the apostles would 
betray him. The Scriptures equally foretold that all who 
are not faithful unto death, but fall away and disobey God, 
will be lost. All such must be lost, that the Scriptures may 
be fulfilled. D. L. 

CHRIST, WHAT DAY CRUCIFIED? 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Matt. 12 : 40 by telling on what 
day Christ was crucified and buried. If it was on Friday, he could 
not have been in the ground only three days and two nights. 

Suppose we say he was buried on Thursday and raised on 
Sunday. Thursday is one day, Friday is two, Saturday is 
three, and Sunday is four. That would make his resurrec- 
tion on the fourth day. But the Bible says, a dozen times 
over, that he was raised on the third day. Take the account 
given by Luke (23: 53-56; 24: 1). Joseph "took it [the 
body] down, and wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid him in a 
tomb that was hewn in stone, where never man had yet lain. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 101 

And it was the day of the Preparation, and the Sabbath 
drew on. And the women, who had come with him out of 
Galilee, followed after, and beheld the tomb, and how his 
body was laid. And they returned, and prepared spices 
and ointments. And on the Sabbath they rested according 
to the commandment. But on the first day of the week, at 
early dawn, they came unto the tomb," and found the Sav- 
ior risen. This is an account of what was done, day by day. 
The women prepared the spices and ointment and waited 
till the Sabbath had passed. Two Sabbaths together had 
never been heard of then. The knowledge of such a won- 
derful thing is a latter-day revelation. When the Sabbath 
had passed, at early dawn Jesus had risen. The account in 
Mark (15: 42-47; 16: 1, 2) agrees with this, leaving no 
room for doubt. The same is true of Matthew's account 
(27: 59-61; 28: 1). They all give similar accounts. He 
was buried the day of the Preparation. He lay in the 
grave the Sabbath and was raised on Sunday morning. 
This is called "after three days." "After eight days" (John 
20 : 26) means on the eighth day, after eight days has come. 
Language is the sign of ideas. God speaks to men in lan- 
guage they can Understand. The Jews were in the habit 
of using this language and of making the expression of a 
day and night mean a day, and God used the language of 
the Jews. There is nothing in the question to affect a 
man's well-being. The world, the whole religious world, 
brought the truth down from the days of the Savior. It 
will not affect any man's happiness in this world or the 
next. To write about it till you are as old as Methuselah 
may show you think God could not tell a straight tale on an 
insignificant matter, for the day-by-day account of the 
death, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ by each 
of the lives of Jesus does not allow any room for another 
day. I write this to settle a squabble over an unimpor- 
tant matter after I had said : "I have said all I have to say." 
It seems that kind of a question interests more people than 
a practical one. 

CHRISTIANS SHOULD SETTLE THEIR DIFFERENCES 
AMONG THEMSELVES, NOT IN CIVIL COURTS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please give us your views on 1 
Cor. 6: 1-6. In verse 1, who is the unjust person spoken of? In 
verse 6, who are the unbelievers? Also, is the word rendered unjust 
in verse 1 the same word rendered unrighteous in verse 9? 

The unjust were the unbelievers — those not Christians. 
The word rendered unjust in verse 1 and unrighteous in 
verse 9 is the same. The meaning of the verses is just 



102 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

this: No Christian at that day held an office in the civil 
government. They were all heathens and idolaters. Chris- 
tians had differences, and resorted to the civil tribunals to 
decide these differences. Paul condemns them severely for 
the course, and tells them to let the saints, or Christians, 
settle these difficulties. He says the saints shall judge the 
world and even angels. How much rather are they com- 
petent to judge the affairs of this world! He tells them 
then, if they have these judgments of temporal things to 
be settled, to put even the very least esteemed in the church 
to settle them rather than the civil rulers. He then tells 
them it is a shame to go before these rulers, and asks : "Is 
it possible you have none in the church wise enough to set- 
tle these personal difficulties?" He then tells them there 
is utterly a wrong when they go to law before these unbe- 
lievers; tells them they had better take and suffer wrong 
than thus to bring reproach on the cause of God. 

It is a lesson that is sometimes forgotten among brethren, 
but we think it no greater sin than Christians mixing up in 
civil affairs in other ways. D. L. 

CHRISTIANS, PROVIDING FOR RELATIVES. 

There are four brothers of us, all able to work, but poor as to this 
world's goods, and all of us with small families. We have one old 
aunt, the only one we have in this country; she is very old and feeble. 
Is it the duty of nephews and nieces to take care of her, or is it a 
church's duty? Would it be right to send her to the poorhouse? 

Paul (1 Tim. 5: 4) says: "If any widow have children 
or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, and 
to requite their parents: for that is good and acceptable 
before God." This showing piety at home is caring for the 
aged and infirm. It is the care and providing for these 
widows connected with us and our families, and not our 
wives and children, of which the apostle speaks when he 
says: "But if any provide not for his own, and specially 
for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is 
worse than an infidel." That is, if any man have a wid- 
owed mother or aunt (according to this translation), and 
especially if she be of his own household, he is worse than 
an infidel if he fails to provide for her. I repeat: This 
language is used in reference to the widows connected with 
the families, and not to the families themselves. 

This would be decisive of the question at once but for the 
fact that the word translated nephews in the Common Ver- 
sion in the Revised Version is translated grandchildren. 
This, which we take to be correct, would lay the obligation 
on the children and grandchildren to care for a widowed 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 103 

mother or grandmother on pain of being pronounced by 
God as worse than an infidel. 

The fact that a man is poor does not alter the case. God 
has one law for rich and poor alike. A poor man cannot 
keep the widow of his family in as much style or with as 
many comforts as a rich man, but he can do the best he 
can; and my faith is, no man was ever made the poorer 
by helping those in need, as God says Christians should. 
It is a lack of faith in God that makes men think they can- 
not do things that God requires them to do. He requires 
us to help the helpless and needy, even if they are not of 
our kindred. And in doing good in God's name we are 
never impoverished. If one of these nephews were to 
take this widowed aunt and care for her, he would never 
be the poorer thereby, and the others should be ashamed to 
let one do what all should jointly do. 

While these nephews are doing this work, if they are 
poor and pressed for help, all their brethren and sisters 
ought to do kindness to them and help them, not because 
this law or that one requires it, but because we are breth- 
ren, and we "ought to bear one another's burdens, and so 
fulfill the law of Christ." It is a bad sign when men or 
churches begin to seek specific laws to exempt them from 
doing good. We think it would be alike a disgrace to the 
kindred and to the church to let their kindred or a member 
of the body of Christ go to the poorhouse. 

As the children and grandchildren deny the faith and 
make themselves worse than the infidel in failing to pro- 
vide for the widows of their household, the church certainly 
places itself in the same position when it refuses or fails to 
provide for its helpless widows. 

While the Scriptures are strenuous in demanding help 
for the worthy helpless, they guard against providing for 
the unworthy. I have no doubt that our city churches sin 
in helping many who are unworthy, and who are able to 
help themselves, because they do not take the time to look 
into their condition ; but many of the country churches sin 
in not looking after the poor and helpless at all. 

CHRISTIANS, THINGS THEY SHOULD NOT DO. 

1. Has a Christian any right to take part in a play at an enter- 
tainment in which the boys kiss the girls? 

2. Is it right for a Christian to go to the theater? 

3. Is it right for a Christian to work for a firm that sells intoxi- 
cating liquors? 

4. Is it right for a Christian to sell groceries on Sunday where it 
is not against the law of the country? 

1. No specific answer is given to these questions in the 
Scriptures; yet there is no ground to doubt the right or 



104 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

wrong of them. The tendency of the freedom of contact 
and caressing between the sexes is to lasciviousness and 
lewdness. Many young persons are led into sin by too 
much freedom in caressing and handling each other. The 
lascivious and lustful feelings are excited and they are 
drawn by degrees into ruin. The right thing is not to take 
the first step. Avoid the contact that excites the lustful 
feelings and weakens the resisting power. Old people are 
to blame for much of the licentiousness of the young, and 
many boys and girls are ruined by the tolerance by the par- 
ents of improper associations between the young. Girls 
who allow themselves to be kissed and caressed by the boys 
do not commend themselves to the boys or secure the re- 
spect of those they kiss. The young men who kiss them, 
when they seek wives, never want the girls they have 
kissed ; they seek girls who do not allow themselves to be 
kissed, who reserve their kisses for their husbands. I 
once heard of a rich, rattling young man who was noted for 
kissing the girls in his town. He finally concluded to 
marry, and sought a girl who surprised his friends. She 
was not his equal in wealth and social station. When 
pressed by his friends to know why he selected her, he said : 
"She is the only girl in this town who refused to let me 
kiss her." He declared he was going to marry her to kiss 
her — which, of course, meant she commanded his respect 
and love by her modesty and reserve. Sensible men never 
marry the women who allow themselves to be kissed and 
caressed by men. 

2. The theater has always been on the side of licentious- 
ness and sin. As such, it ought to be discountenanced and 
avoided. It appeals to the fleshly and licentious feelings in 
men. While we reason that theatrical performances ought 
to and might be of an intellectual and elevating character, 
it remains true that they have always appealed to the fleshly 
and lascivious feelings and have tended to immorality and 
vice. If this is so, Christians should avoid the theater. 
Even if it appears that one play now and then would not 
be hurtful in its tendency and that a discriminating mind 
might attend and avoid others, yet the harmless ones are 
so few that the example would lead others less discrimi- 
nating to attend those that lead downward, and in so lead- 
ing others to their ruin we sin against Christ. The results 
of the theater have always been against morality and vir- 
tue, and Christians ought not to countenance it. 

3. "Let him labor, working with his hands the thing 
that is good," is the restriction Paul throws on the work 
Christians may do. Selling whisky is not a good work. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 105 

4. The laws of the land do forbid all kinds of secular 
business on Sunday, save those of necessity and mercy. 
Sometimes brethren persuade themselves there is no harm 
in attending to business, so they attend the service on the 
Lord's day. But I have never known a person to begin 
this who did not very soon give up either the business or the 
religious service. They do not harmonize and cannot be 
kept together. Whatever has a tendency to wean away 
from the service of God is sinful and ought to ve avoided. 
The example of attending to secular business on Sunday is 
hurtful. A great to-do is made over saloon keepers keep- 
ing open on Sunday. Their business is legalized, and, from 
their standpoint and legally, they have the same right to 
conduct their business on Sunday that the grocer or mer- 
chant has. They ought to be all treated alike by the law. 
If it is wrong for any legalized business to be conducted on 
Sunday, it is wrong for all such business to be so conducted. 
A Christian ought to avoid, as far as possible, all attention 
to secular business. D. L. 

"CHRISTIAN CHURCH," THE TERM. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In the Gospel Advocate of October 
12, you, speaking of the Caskey and Price debate, use the phrase 
"Christian Church." I want to know why you use it. Is it right? 
I know A. Campbell and a majority of our brethren use this phrase; 
but does that make it right? The apostles spoke as the Holy Spirit 
gave them utterance; they never once used the name "Christian 
Church/' The apostle Peter says: "If any man speak, let him speak 
as the oracles of God." It always seemed strange to me that breth- 
ren prefer to use names not found in the Bible to those that are there 
when speaking of Bible things. I was amused once at Brother C. M. 
Wilmeth in the Advocate. He seemed to be very much opposed to be- 
ing called "parson." He says: "You may stick pins in me, pour hot 
coffee in my lap, call me 'possum;' but don't call me 'parson.'" He 
says the Christian Church has enough titles. The thought struck me 
that he would find "parson" in the same chapter and verse below 
where he found "Christian Church." I frequently, when reasoning 
with my Baptist neighbors, tell them they have got hold of the wrong 
name — "Baptist Church." This they cannot deny, but generally turn 
on me for my authority for "Christian Church." I tell them I have 
none; the Bible says not one word about it. They say: "What? The 
Gospel Advocate and your standard authors use the name." This I 
cannot deny. I can earnestly contend for the faith once delivered to 
the saints by Christ and the apostles by letting their words dwell in 
me, but cannot contend for titles and innovations that have been 
added on by great and good men. The apostle Paul says: "Prove all 
things; hold fast that which is good." "Christian Church" is without 
proof. I know some argue it is grammatically right, but is it scrip- 
turally right? Why not use the language of the apostles — "church of 
God?" All' agree that this is right. This would be same nearer the 
apostolic injunction: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of 



106 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing." ( 1 Cor. 1 : 
10.) 

We suppose it is more by force of habit than otherwise 
that our brethren use the expression "the Christian 
Church;" and, of course, the fact that brethren, whether 
editors or others, use the appellation does not make it right. 
The expression is not found in that form in the New Testa- 
ment. The expressions there are "kingdom of God," 
"church of God," "the house of God," "the temple of God," 
"the body of Christ," etc. ; and it is certainly proper that we 
should use some of these expressions when we speak of this 
kingdom. But, still, the expression "Christian Church" is 
not so unscriptural nor so likely to lead astray as some other 
names. The word church literally means congregation, 
and the name Christian belongs to all the followers of Je- 
sus Christ ; and when you put any number or all Christians 
together as a collected body, you then have a Christian con- 
gregation, and that is all the expression means. But we 
are not at all disposed to defend the expression as a desig- 
nation of the body of Christ. There are plenty of Bible 
expressions that are just as plain and as easy of pronunci- 
ation as that one. Yet we cannot say that it is wholly un- 
scriptural. But, to avoid all possible difficulty in the mat- 
ter, we think it would be better to use exactly the expres- 
sions that are found in the word of God on that and all other 
subjects. We should remove every possible objection out 
of the way that we possibly can and leave the people no 
room to find fault. Paul told Timothy to hold fast the 
form of sound words, and we ought to follow the divine 
rule. This is the one distinguishing feature between us 
and the denominations — that we follow the word of God in 
all things and avoid all human wisdom in matters of reli- 
gion ; and if ever the people of God are one, it will be when 
all human names and human platforms are laid aside and 
when all shall take the pure word of God and follow ear- 
nestly and closely its divine precepts. We ought contin- 
ually to labor for a union of Christians upon the one foun- 
dation of apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being 
the chief corner stone ; and to labor successfully, we should 
remove every difficulty and every hindering cause out of 
the way, and thus have a clear and open field into which 
we may invite all the lovers of the Lord to enter and aid us 
in the grand work of edifying and strengthening the church 
and in the conversion of sinners to the purity of our holy 
religion. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 107 

CHRISTMAS TREES. 

We have been discussing the propriety of having what is called a 
"Christmas tree" in the church, house at this place, and find that we 
greatly need light on the subject, and wish you to give us all the light 
you conveniently can. 

1. About the only t thing certain about the time of the 
Savior's birth is that he was not born at Christmas time. 
This is regarded as certain. 

2. The Bible never authorized any celebration of the birth 
of Christ. To engage in worship not ordained by God is 
sin. This we regard as beyond dispute. 

3. We do not believe there is any harm in a social gather- 
ing and the interchange of presents and kindly offices 
among members of the. church; but I would never make the 
impression it was done on the birthday of the Savior nor as 
a religious service. 

4. There is nothing sacred about a meetinghouse. It is 
built for the congregation, the comfort and use of the peo- 
ple. The people who obey constitute the church of God. 
Anything the church or its members may do may be done 
in the house they built for their convenience. 

CHURCH, IS ONE, AS GOOD AS ANOTHER? 

The affirmative of the above is a very common expression 
among the denominations, and sometimes is heard even 
among the disciples of Christ. If when the expression is 
used reference is had only to denominations as such, we 
have no disposition whatever to question the truth of the 
claim ; but when the church of God, as revealed in the New 
Testament, is brought into the account and compared with 
denominations of human names and human build, we are 
compelled to say, No. All denominations have been built 
by human wisdom, and everything that is peculiar to any 
denomination is essentially human. The church of God 
as given in the Christian Scriptures is purely divine in all 
its parts. Every item, both in introducing men into it and 
in carrying on its practical work, is given us by inspiration. 
Nothing here is left for man's wisdom. God has given us 
all the laws of his kingdom. But in all the denominations 
in the world there is more or less that is human. The name 
of every denomination in the world is human. God never 
named one of them nor gave a single one of their pecu- 
liarities. And to say that any one of these denominations 
is as good as the church of God is to elevate human wis- 
dom to an equality with the wisdom of God. There is not 
one denomination to be found that is built upon the one 
foundation which the Lord has laid in Zion. When Je- 



108 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

sus was on earth and sojourning with his disciples, and 
when Peter had said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God," he replied: "Upon this rock I will build my 
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 
(Matt. 16: 18.) Paul also said: "Other foundation can no 
man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." These 
passages enable us with certainty to determine what the 
one foundation is. It is the sublime truth that Jesus is the 
Christ, the Son of God. There is no denomination that 
builds upon this truth. Every creed, discipline, or confes- 
sion of faith we have ever examined claims that Christ is 
"very and eternal God," and thus they all contradict the 
word of God, reject the one foundation the Lord has laid, 
and erect something else upon which to build ; and not only 
do they reject the one only foundation, but they reject the 
law of initiation into the kingdom that God has ordained 
and establish others of their own devising and their own 
arrangement. 

The Lord ordained that sinners, in order to an entrance 
into the kingdom of Christ, must believe the gospel, must 
repent of their sins, and must be baptized into Christ. 
Everywhere the apostles preached, these things were re- 
quired ; and the people by thousands submitted, and thus 
entered. But where is the denomination that teaches and 
practices these things now? Not one such is to be found. 
However much they may differ in other things, they are 
unanimous in claiming that the sinner is in Christ, is par- 
doned, saved, before baptism and independent of it. While 
God has ordained that by baptism men enter into Christ, 
the religious parties of the present day set that aside and 
claim an entrance into Christ before baptism and by other 
means, thus making void this command of God by their 
traditions. Can churches acting thus, rejecting the wis- 
dom and authority of God, be called as good as the church 
of God, the one "built upon the foundation of the apostles 
and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner 
stone?" By no means. This cannot truthfully, scriptu- 
rally be done. Then, as to the practical work of the church, 
the management of the house of the Lord on earth, where 
is the religious party, denomination, that takes the word of 
God as given in the Christian Scriptures and follows these 
divine directions? There is not one such to be found. 
But, on the other hand, they actually claim that there is 
no rule, no system of church government, laid down in the 
New Testament, but that all this is left to the wisdom of 
men. Hence, synods, conferences, presbyteries, assemblies, 
and associations are called for this purpose. These assem- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 109 

blies all act upon this principle. They, in their judgment, 
must finish up what the Lord has left undone. 

They must make laws for the government of God's peo- 
ple. Although the word of God says that "his divine power 
hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and god- 
liness/' they ruthlessly contradict this and say: "No; this 
is a mistake. God has not given all things ; he has left for 
men to arrange the particulars of church government as 
may best suit their own wisdom." Although the word of 
God says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and 
is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 
instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be 
perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works," yet 
denominations say, "No; the man of God is not furnished 
in the Scriptures with a rule for church government, but 
must make them by his wisdom," thus setting at naught 
the word of God, setting up their own laws and regulations 
for the government of the church. Thus they reject God 
and make void his word by their traditions. In this is man- 
ifested the disposition of the man of sin, the disposition to 
set themselves above God, above his authority, set up for 
themselves in the whole management of the church on 
earth. Hence their long disciplines and confessions of faith 
and articles of decorum and such like. Never was higher 
presumption manifested by Catholicism itself than is man- 
ifested by all those who set the government that God has 
given at naught and set up for themselves. 

Indeed, we regard this as one of the leading features and 
characteristics of the man of sin as given by Paul in his 
second letter to the Thessalonians. Shall we, then, say that 
these are as good as the church of God that takes his word 
and goes by it? Nay, verily. Then, again, the anathemas 
of God are settled against those who add to or diminish 
from the word of God which he has given. And yet in 
every creed, every discipline, and every confession of faith 
in the land both these things are done. They all ignore, set 
aside, some things that God has required and add some 
things that God never ordained and will never approve. 
Thus all the creed makers in the world make themselves 
guilty of both these offenses. God requires his people to 
meet on the first day of the week to break bread, to worship 
him in taking the Lord's Supper ; but these denominations, 
creed makers, have changed this order and have arranged 
to take the Supper once a quarter or once in six months, 
and have also inaugurated the custom of meeting on the 
first day of the week to hear preaching — something God 



110 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

never ordained — thus adding to and diminishing from the 
word of God at the same time. 

Then, again, denominations have set aside the names 
that God has given for the divine institution that he or- 
dained and have substituted human names instead. Also 
the names God has given his individual children are set 
aside, while human names, unknown to the oracles of God, 
are substituted instead. Are these organizations that do 
these things as good as the church of God? Surely not. 
When these denominations are compared one with another 
and one of them is said to be as good as another, we have 
nothing to say. This may be true for aught we know, and 
we shall spend no time in pointing out differences or in try- 
ing to determine which of them is better or^ which is the 
best; but when these parties are compared with the word 
and church of God and said to be as good as it, we do not 
believe a word of it. Like Elijah of old, we are zealous for 
the Lord of hosts, and, therefore, oppose all who engage 
in pulling down the Lord's altars and persecuting his proph- 
ets. And, strange to say, some, even of the disciples of 
Christ, or that claim to be such, use the expression at the 
head of this article affirmatively, even when the church of 
God is taken into the account, and say, "One church is as 
good as another," including the church of God as one. This 
is just a little too bad. But we have never known any to 
do this, except those who are ignorant of the difference be- 
tween the church of God and modern denominations, or 
such, in the next place, as have done like the denomina- 
tions — have added things that God never ordained, in the 
way of societies, human plans, organs, and such like things, 
that can no more be defended by the word of God than the 
errors of denominationalism. And for such as these to con- 
demn the parties around them would be to condem them- 
selves, for they have acted upon precisely the same princi- 
ple in what they are doing. These are the very men among 
those claiming to be purely the Lord's people that say that 
one church is as good as another; and whenever they do 
this, they place themselves upon a level with all who in any 
matter set aside the word of God and substitute something 
else. Those who do this are going backward, not forward. 

As to the people that belong to these denominations, 
many of them are apparently as pious, as humble, as zeal- 
ous, as any we find; and for these traits we love them. 
Many, too, of the masses are wholly ignorant of the extent 
to which the creeds to which they adhere have rejected, 
changed, and added to the word of God, and many that if 
they knew these things would submit no longer. For all 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. Ill 

such as these we have the highest regard. But we can 
never say of these denominations as such, with their human 
creeds, that they are as good as the church of God. We 
do not believe it, and, therefore, cannot say so. We be- 
lieve in respecting the word and authority of God above all 
things else. We believe in the names that God has given to 
his church and to his people above all human names. We 
believe in the word of God as the only rule of faith and 
practice against all the creeds and confessions of faith the 
wisdom of the world ever produced, and can never consent 
to any form of speech that will place human wisdom and 
human productions upon an equality with the word of God 
and his wisdom. E. G. S. 

CHURCH, IS ONE, AS GOOD AS ANOTHER?— AGAIN. 

The claim that one church is as good as another is based 
upon the assumption that the doctrines and practices of one 
are as good as the doctrines and practices of another. But 
the question is : What is the standard by which such claim 
is made? Evidently the claim is based upon the outward 
appearance of men, in their outward manifestations of ear- 
nestness, zeal, devotion to their systems of religion, and 
their general manifestations of morality and piety. Such 
an estimate as says one church is as good as another is not 
made by comparing these churches and their creeds with 
the word of God, and thus deciding that all these harmo- 
nize with that word ; for if the estimate were made in this 
way, all would fall behind. There is not one denomination 
extant that could stand the test of such comparison, for all 
these denominations have things in their creeds and in their 
practices that are plainly contradictory to the word of 
God. It will be in order here to show up some of these 
contradictions. 

We will begin with the Presbyterian "Confession of 
Faith. " On page 11, second chapter, of this book we have 
the following language: "There is but one only living and 
true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most 
pure spirit invisible, without body, parts, or passions." We 
note one point of contradiction with the Bible in this pas- 
sage. It says of God that he is without parts. But God 
said to Moses: "And thou shalt see my back parts." (Ex. 
33: 23.) Here God himself shows he has back parts, and 
that he would show them to Moses. In this the contradic- 
tion to the word of God is so palpable every one can see it 
at a glance. And besides this passage, naming the back 
parts of God, there are other passages that speak of the 
face of God, his hand, his arm, his feet, his fist. Then 



112 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

there are others that speak of his love, his anger, his hatred, 
and such like; and yet the above passage from the "Con- 
fession of Faith" says he is without passions. Here, then, 
are two declarations that contradict the word of God. The 
Cumberland Presbyterian "Confession of Faith" says pre- 
cisely the same thing, and thus contradicts the word of God 
in the same way. As the language is just the same as the 
above on this matter, we need not quote it. 

The Methodist "Discipline" also says God is without parts 
and does not say he is without passions. Thus in the mat- 
ter of parts all three of the creeds named contradict the 
word of God. How, then, can churches founded on creeds 
that contradict the word of God be called as good as the 
church of God, founded upon his word alone? 

On page 13 of the Presbyterian "Confession of Faith," 
speaking of God's eternal decrees, we have the following: 
"By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, 
some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting 
life and others foreordained to everlasting death. These 
angels and men thus predestinated and foreordained are 
particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number 
is so certain and definite that it cannot be either increased 
or diminished." This quotation, together with the whole 
article on God's decrees, is contrary to the whole spirit and 
meaning of the gospel of Christ, which requires it to be 
preached to every creature, promising that those who be- 
lieve and are baptized shall be saved, declaring "he that be- 
lieveth not shall be damned." This shows that whether 
men shall be saved or condemned does not depend upon a 
fixed and unalterable decree, but upon their own choice and 
action. If they believe and obey, they shall be saved; if 
they believe not, they shall be damned. According to the 
spirit of the above, the commission should be : "Preach the 
gospel to every creature, that those predestinated to life 
may believe and be saved and that those ordained to death 
may disbelieve and be damned." This, while in harmony 
with the creed, contradicts every principle of the gospel of 
Christ and destroys every vestige of human responsibil- 
ity; for, according to the creed, none can believe except 
those already and unchangeably decreed to life, while none 
of those unchangeably decreed to death can possibly believe ; 
and even if they could believe and obey, they are already 
doomed to be lost and it would do them no good. 

This entirely disannuls the spirit and intention of the 
gospel as given forth in the word of God ; for God wills not 
"that any should perish, but that all should come to repent- 
ance." (2 Pet. 3: 9.) Thus, while God says he does not 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 113 

will that any should perish, the creed says he has already 
from before the foundation of the world willed that many, 
both of men and angels, should perish, thus plainly contra- 
dicting the word of God in this matter. 

On page 31 this same creed teaches that those whom God 
has elected and called "can neither totally nor finally fall 
away from the state of grace, but shall persevere therein 
to the end and be eternally saved." This teaches that no 
child of God can cease to be a child and be lost ; but the Bi- 
ble gives us cases in which immense numbers of those who 
were once servants of God ceased to be his servants and 
were rejected of him, as the Jews in the wilderness, even 
the seventy elders who were spiritually endowed, disobeyed 
God and died ouside the promised land. And in the New 
Testament there are any number of passages teaching that 
unless Christians will serve God faithfully to the end of 
life they will be lost at last, though once the people of God. 
Peter speaks of those which have forsaken the right way, 
"to whom the mist of darkness is reserved forever." This 
is plain, showing that some in the lifetime of Peter were at 
one time in the right way and had already forsaken it so 
far that their doom was already fixed. This is all contra- 
dicted by the creed. In Revelation it is plainly taught that 
people may have their names enrolled in the book of life, 
and then their names may be blotted out. 

The Cumberland "Confession" teaches the same thing on 
final perseverance, and thus in this matter contradicts the 
word of God the same as the other. 

Again, the creeds teach that the light of nature teaches 
men that God exists, while the word of God teaches that 
the world by wisdom knows not God. Again, the creeds 
say positively in regard to baptism that "dipping of the 
person into the water is not necessary, but baptism is 
rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon 
the person." But this language of the creeds is not only 
outside of the Bible, not only entirely human, but is ut- 
terly contrary to the Bible ; for, to say nothing of the mean- 
ing of the word baptize, Paul, both in Romans and Colos- 
sians, tells us that we are buried with Christ in baptism. 
We are buried. A burial in water is not performed by 
either pouring or sprinkling a few drops of water upon 
men. In this matter again the creeds set aside the word of 
God by the word and authority of men. And shall we say 
that the churches acting thus are as good as the churches 
of God? 

Again, the Methodist "Discipline" says, regarding the de- 
sign of Christ's death: "Who truly suffered, was crucified, 



114 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a 
sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sin 
of men." This plainly says that Christ died to reconcile 
his Father to us; but Paul says: "God was in Christ, rec- 
onciling the world unto himself/' (2 Cor. 5: 19.) We 
might present many passages in the word of God of the 
same import, but this is enough to show that in this the 
"Discipline" contradicts the word of God. 

Again, the "Discipline" says: "Wherefore that we are 
justified by faith only is a most wholesome doctrine and 
very full of comfort." In this the "Discipline" says, "We 
are justified by faith only;" but James says: "Ye see then 
how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith 
only." "And not by faith only." Could contradictions be 
more positive? Many other contradictions to the word of 
God can be given, but these are enough for a sample. These 
creeds not only contradict the word of God, but they contra- 
dict and conflict with one another almost from beginning 
to end, and especially regarding church government, and 
thus make it impossible for the adherents of these different 
creeds ever to unite as one people, and make it utterly 
impossible for them ever to unite upon the word of God as 
long as these creeds are bonds of union among these reli- 
gious bodies. Thus they are keeping up endless and in- 
determinable differences and carrying on endless strife and 
confusion. 

"But," say some, "the members of these denominations 
do not read, understand, nor go by these creeds." That 
may be true with many of the private members, but it is 
not so with the preachers and leaders. It is made a point 
with the leaders that the creeds of these parties, respec- 
tively, must be accepted when they are ordained. One of 
the questions asked of every Methodist preacher who enters 
the conference is : "Are you willing to conform to the 'Dis- 
cipline' of the church?" Also every preacher ordained in 
the Cumberland Presbyterian Church is required to answer 
in the affirmative to the following: "Do you sincerely re- 
ceive and adopt the 'Confession of Faith' of this church as 
containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scrip- 
tures?" (Page 227.) Also on page 187 of the Presbyte- 
rian creed we find the same language, which shows that 
every preacher in that church is pledged to acquiesce in and 
obey the creed of his church. With all these facts before 
us, how can we say one church is as good as another, and 
how can the disciples of Christ enter into union meetings 
and such like things with those tied and committed to creeds 
that contradict the word of God? E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 115 

CHURCH, ARE ALL CHRISTIANS MEMBERS OF THE? 

Are all Christians members of the church of Christ? Is there 
any act after baptism by which we become members of the church of 
Christ? 

All Christians are, without any doubt, members of the 
church of God, the body of Christ; and they become such 
by obeying the gospel. When any one obeys the require- 
ments of the gospel, the last of which is baptism, he is then 
born again, is in Christ, in his body (the church), is a child 
of God, an heir of God and joint heir with Christ; and no 
step he can take after this has anything to do in making a 
member of the church of God. But when persons thus obey 
the gospel, enter into the church of God, the congregation 
where they propose to meet and strive to live the Christian 
life extend to them the right hand in order to bid them a 
hearty welcome into their number to keep the ordinances 
at that place. This is done because they are members of 
the church of God, not to make them such, but to bid them 
a kind and Christian welcome into that particular congre- 
gation, as their Christian home, to meet and worship the 
Lord with them; and this kindly reception by extending 
the right hand is not becoming a Christian, nor is it joining 
the church of God. 

CHURCH, THE ATTENDING TO, BUSINESS ON THE 
LORD'S DAY. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it right for the church when 
they have assembled on Lord's day to try members for misconduct, or 
transact any business of that kind — or, in other words, have they any 
right to do anything but read, sing, exhort, pray, preach, and partake 
of the emblems? Would it not be better to attend to the other busi- 
ness on Saturday or some other day of the week? 

We never could see any impropriety in attending to the 
Lord's business on the Lord's day. Occasionally business 
may come up that it is hardly proper to associate with the 
observance of the Lord's Supper. Then it would be better 
to attend to it at some other hour in the day. But ordina- 
rily the Lord's business, attended to in a decent and Chris- 
tian way, has no evil results upon the observance of the 
Lord's Supper. The latter should have a hallowing effect 
on other business. D. L. 

CHURCH, THE, NOT CIVIL COURTS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In 1 Cor. 6: 4 we find this lan- 
guage: "If then ye have judgments of things pertaining to this life, 
set them to judge who are least esteemed in the church." Why "set 
them to judge who are least esteemed in the church?" Please answer 
through the Gospel Advocate as soon as convenient. 

We do not understand that Paul has reference to the 
members of the church when he speaks of those least es- 



116 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

teemed in (by) the church. He was reproving the church 
of Corinth for going to law with one another before the un- 
believers instead of settling their disputes in the church. 
The meaning is as if he had said : "Why do ye set them to 
judge who are least esteemed ?" The "Living Oracles" ren- 
ders the verse thus: "If, then, you have the cognizance of 
such matters, why do you set those to judge who are of no 
account in the congregation?" And as the whole connec- 
tion is a reproof to them for going to law, we understand 
the meaning to be: "Why do you set officers of the world 
to judge your causes? Are there none among you able to 
judge of the commonest affairs in worldly matters? Are 
you unable to judge the smallest matters?" He lets them 
know that their whole course was wrong, and that they 
must come out from the world and settle all their differ- 
ences in the congregation. IE. G. S. 

CHURCH, THE, AND SECRET SOCIETIES. 

Was the church designed only to benefit man's spiritual wants? 
Can a man be a good Christian and be an active member of secret so- 
cieties? 

When a man is benefited spiritually, he is benefited in- 
tellectually and physically. When a man brings himself 
under the laws of Christ, he cuts off every dissipation that 
hinders the cultivation and development of the mind. He 
ceases every practice that injures his physical development. 
He ceases all dissipation, quits the use of spirits, tobacco, 
and all stimulants and narcotics, and uses food in moder- 
ation, so that the whole man is built up and strengthened. 
He ceases to strive for honors and riches, so is released 
from care, anxiety, and worldly strife. He can do his duty, 
throw his burdens on the Lord, and sleep sweetly and 
soundly. He lives frugally and quietly, doing his duty to 
God, to his fellow man, and to himself. The Christian reli- 
gion then cultivates the heart, the mind, the body, and gives 
promise both of the life that now is and of that which is to 
come. That is what the Christian religion will do if we 
live up to its teachings. When we refuse to live according 
to its teachings, it cannot so help us. A man can find op- 
portunity and the wisest means (wisest because given by 
God) in the church for receiving and bestowing good. If 
he lives up to the obligations of the church, he has no room 
in his heart, his life, or his purse for other organizations 
or service. God's provisions for receiving and bestowing 
good are as high above man's as heaven is above earth. 
We know of no difference, morally, between secret societies 
and those not secret. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 117 

CHURCH, THE, IN MATT. 18: 17. 

What "church" is referred to in Matt. 18: 17, which reads thus: 
"And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if 
he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man 
and a publican?" 

A church is a called-out and separated band. The per- 
sonal followers of Christ were the only such in his day. 
They were to tell it to them. Since then congregations 
have been planted, and the church which the parties are 
with is the one. 

CHURCH, FOUNDATION OF THE. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Matt. 16: 16-18 through the 
Gospel Advocate. 

Jesus had turned his face toward Jerusalem for the last 
time. On reaching the city, he must give up his life. As 
the end approached, he was considering, and wished to im- 
press on his disciples the importance of considering, how 
they should regard him. He asked his disciples: "Whom 
do men say that I am? What impression has my mission 
and work made upon the world generally?" They tell him : 
"Some think you are John the Baptist ; others, Jeremias, or 
one of the prophets of old, come to life again." This con- 
ception of him did not satisfy the demands of Jesus ; so he 
directly put the question to his disciples, who had been his 
companions for years, had heard his teachings, and had seen 
his miracles: "Whom do you say I am? What impression 
have I made on you?" Peter, with his natural forward- 
ness, answered: "Thou art the Christ [the Anointed], the 
Son of the living God." This was the true position of Je- 
sus, and satisfied his demands. So, in turn, he tells Peter 
he is blessed in the conception of this truth — that this is a 
revelation from God, not a conception of man. It had been 
revealed by God to Peter at the Jordan when Jesus was 
baptized, when the voice from heaven said : "This is my be- 
loved Son, in whom I am well pleased." He further tells 
him this truth that he had confessed is the fundamental 
truth of his teaching, on which his church should rest, and 
the gates of Hades should not prevail against it. There is 
some diversity of opinion about what is meant by the ex- 
pression, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." I 
think it safe to say it involves the idea that this kingdom 
should never be destroyed. All other kingdoms and insti- 
tutions shall come to naught, but this builded by God will 
survive and stand forever. Christ then commits to Peter 
the work of opening the door of this kingdom to the world, 
or of first directing men and women into it. Peter did this 
on Pentecost and again at the house of Cornelius. There 



118 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

is some contention in the religious world as to whether Je- 
sus by "this rock" means Peter or the truth that Jesus is the 
Christ. Paul (1 Cor. 3: 11 — "For other foundation can no 
man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ") settles 
this question. Paul says : "I have laid the foundation, and 
another buildeth thereon." He laid the foundation in 
preaching that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God." 

CHURCH, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE. 

Brother Seivell: We have a brother here that does not take the 
Gospel Advocate, but wants you to write a piece on the establishment 
of the church for the benefit of himself and others. 

We have already written some things on this subject that 
will, ere long be published ; but we will write briefly now in 
response to the above, as it is an exceedingly important 
subject. The kingdom of heaven is an historical matter, 
and the time of its establishment can be easily settled if 
we examine closely. In the Old Testament, the new cov- 
enant, the gospel of Christ, the body of Christ, the general 
assembly and church of the firstborn, the kingdom of 
heaven, the kingdom of God, was purely a matter of proph- 
ecy, as it was not in existence then. In the New Testament, 
the preparatory work and state of the kingdom began un- 
der the preaching of John the Immerser. His proclamation 
was: "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." 
When many of the Jews had been baptized by John, Jesus 
came and was baptized also. Soon afterwards he chose and 
sent out the twelve apostles, and commanded them to 
preach the same things. Christ himself preached the same 
things for a time. But soon he entered much more largely 
into the preparatory work, teaching the great and general 
principles upon which the church of God was to be builded, 
presenting these things from various standpoints and in 
many parables, and performing many miracles to prove 
himself to be the Son of God. This preparatory work was 
continued till the death of Christ, thence on till he had 
given the divine commission, including the miraculous bap- 
tism of the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles in their great 
work of carrying out the commission given them and in 
fully establishing the church, together with its practical 
work. This brings us to the day of Pentecost, at which 
time and place the church of God was fully established. 
From the beginning of John's ministry up to this memo- 
rable day, the kingdom, the church, when spoken of, was al- 
most represented as in the future. The preaching on the 
day of Pentecost was entirely new, something that had 
never been preached to men as a plan of salvation before 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 119 

that day. "Christ, and him crucified," was then preached 
as the plan of salvation. The people were required to be- 
lieve it, to repent, and to be baptized into the remission of 
sins. About three thousand did the things required and 
were thus added to those who had already been prepared 
and were the charter members of the church. In the very 
chapter giving these facts (Acts 2: 47) the church is men- 
tioned as actually present and people being added to it daily. 
This chapter, therefore, gives us the full establishment of 
the church of God on earth, and precisely how to enter into 
it. And from this day on to the end of the New Testament, 
the church, the kingdom of God, is spoken of as present, 
and its members were also taught all the practical work and 
worship of the church. So, then, in general terms, the first 
four books of the New Testament give the preparatory work 
and state of the church and how it was carried on ; Acts of 
Apostles gives us the establishment of the church in its full- 
ness and the way into it ; while the letters of the apostles to 
the churches give the practical work of the church. 

CHURCH, WITHDRAWING FROM A. 

When a member who lives almost under the shadow of the church 
edifice asks for the privilege to "withdraw from the congregation" of 
said church, alleging as a reason for such a step that "a large majority 
of the Christian Church members have done all they could do against 
every effort my wife or myself have ever made to procure the actual 
necessaries for our family," also that "this same congregation show 
by all of their acts that they do not wish to fraternize with me or 
mine," should such privilege be granted until after the charges 
against the congregation shall have been thoroughly investigated? 

We have no scriptural example of anything like the 
above. Where one individual complains of a whole congre- 
gation, we very naturally suppose that he is wrong himself. 
It very rarely occurs that a whole congregation will array 
itself against all the efforts of one of its own members. 
We have not known an instance of the kind. The probabil- 
ities are that the above-named member is either morbidly 
sensitive and suspicious of his brethren or he is in some way 
radically wrong himself and they do not wish to encourage 
him in his wrong course. If his charge is correct, the con- 
gregation should by all means make matters right; but if 
not correct, then they ought to strive earnestly to get him 
right. If they succeed, they have gained their brother; 
if all gospel means fail and he persists in. making a false 
charge against the church, we do not see how they can per- 
mit him to withdraw as if in good standing. If in such a 
case a member withdraws, he withdraws from the church of 
God and ought not to be recognized as a Christian by any 



120 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

congregation till he mends his ways. And, moreover, when 
a member gets wrong and all gospel means fail to set him 
right, the congregation where he belongs, instead of allow- 
ing him to withdraw from them as if in good standing, 
ought to withdraw from him for walking disorderly. Such 
steps, however, should be taken with great caution, that 
everything be done according to the word of God and in the 
spirit of Christ. E. G. S. 

CHURCH, SHOULD AN INDIVIDUAL WITHDRAW 
FROM THE? 

Is it right for an elder, and a minister of the word, to fall out with 
a part of the members of the church to which he belongs and with- 
draw his name from the congregation, and continue to preach in other 
localities, without any membership in any congregation? I am an as- 
sistant subscriber for the Gospel Advocate, a poor man, who pays one 
dollar to Brother L. D. Randolph, who takes it, reads it, turns it over 
to me, and I read it and lend it to my friends to read. 

H. C. McNees. 

I am the "elder" and "minister" referred to in Brother McNees' 
question. He has not exactly stated the case as it is. It is rather 
this way : Some of the brethren have fallen out with me. I have done 
all in my power for the cause of my Master in this country. I have 
labored for this people — the church — for nearly thirty years (ever 
since 1855), and all without one dime of remuneration. I have met 
sin in the face, and hence my offense to some. Well, I could not, in 
the light of the apostle's injunctions, remain a member with the con- 
gregation. (2 Thess. 3: 6; 1 Tim. 6: 5; 2 Tim. 3: 1.) Please say 
whether I was justifiable or not. 

Do you consider Brother Milligan's exposition of 1 Tim. 5: 19 cor- 
rect? See "Scheme of Redemption," page 308. It is this: "That an 
accusation against an elder should not be received unless it was sup- 
ported by the testimony of two or three witnesses." 

L. D. Randolph. 

The above questions, as stated by the brother and the 
preacher, are put to us. Certainly we have never been able 
to find any authority for a member of a church, minister or 
others, withdrawing from a congregation. If such a thing 
ever occurred in apostolic days, they failed to tell of it. If 
the Holy Spirit anticipated such a necessity would ever oc- 
cur, he failed to give any intimation of the fact. Churches 
became very corrupt in apostolic days; rather, they began 
very low down in morals and did not improve. The Co- 
rinthians retained a man that took his father's wife from 
him. The Holy Spirit reproves the church for retaining 
such an individual, but does not advise any one to withdraw 
from the church. 

The Spirit wrote to the churches of Asia, as recorded in 
Revelation, and found much sin to condemn. One church 
had fallen from its first love; another had in it members 
who were of the synagogue of Satan; another had those 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 121 

who held the doctrine of Balaam, those also that taught the 
disciples to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit for- 
nication. Then of the Sardis church he says: "Thou hast 
a name that thou livest, and art dead." But he says : 
"Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not de- 
filed their garments." Does he tell these few to withdraw 
from the church on account of its disorderly walk? In- 
stead thereof, his admonition is: "Be watchful, and 
strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die." 

The scriptures to which our brother refers teach exactly 
the opposite from what he practices. These scriptures 
teach that the congregations should withdraw from the dis- 
orderly members. The first scripture is: "We command 
you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that 
ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh 
disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received 
of us." 

The lessons in Timothy teach us to keep aloof from these 
wandering, irresponsible teachers that work evil. There 
is nothing more plainly taught in the Bible than that the 
church, the individual congregations at Corinth, at Thessa- 
lonica, at Ephesus, constituted the body of Christ, and the 
individual members were parts of this body. To withdraw 
from this body was to withdraw from Christ. The idea 
that a man can be a member of Christ, can be in Christ, and 
yet in no congregation or body of Christ, is an idea that has 
no foundation in the Bible. It is a part of that old secta- 
rian idea that a man may be in Christ before and without 
being in the body of Christ. It embodies the idea that 
there is an invisible church on earth, separate and distinct 
from the churches of God. The whole idea is wrong and 
subversive in all its workings of the divine order. The di- 
visions condemned in the Bible are divisions in these indi- 
vidual congregations of the Lord. Men who think nothing 
of dividing and destroying congregations of Christ preach 
much about Christian union. The only church union taught 
in the Bible is the indivisible unity and harmony of the local 
churches of God within themselves. Until we learn to re- 
spect and honor the churches of God, others will not respect 
them or our plea. The whole thing of withdrawing from 
one church and joining another, save as we change our lo- 
cality and worship with one near us or we near it, is with- 
out warrant in the word of God. No preacher or individ- 
ual who refuses to recognize himself as a member of the 
church near him by worshiping with it ought to be recog- 
nized by any other congregation. This we say of the gen- 
eral practice on this subject; of the special difficulties in 



122 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the above case we know nothing. Generally the brethren 
are pretty much what the preacher makes them. When he 
has taught them for thirty or thirty-five years, he is like a 
father to his family. It would be a very strange proceed- 
ing for a father to raise a family of children, and then, 
when he is old, repudiate them, refuse to recognize himself 
as their father, disown them as his family. The whole idea 
that a man, preacher or otherwise, can fall out with a 
church and withdraw from it is without biblical foundation 
and most destructive to the cause of God. To withdraw 
from a church is to withdraw from the body of Christ, is 
to withdraw from Christ. If these brethren do not aid our 
brother when he needs it, it is doubtless because he has not 
done his duty in teaching them. He should repent of his 
wrong, acknowledge it, and patiently teach them what is 
right instead of leaving them. They will likely not fully 
recover from his failure to teach them during his life ; but 
he can, to some extent, rectify former failures. Christians 
must be taught the duty and blessedness of giving before 
they will practice it. 

The exposition of 1 Tim. 5 : 19 I think correct. 

A portion of the people of Israel were called "Jews" be- 
cause they dwelt in the land of Judah. The land received 
its name from Judah, the son of Jacob. D. L. 

CHURCHES, CONSTITUTION AND ORDER OF. 

Brother Lipscomb: I see that our scribes are discussing the "local 
church" as it existed in the days of the apostles. I feel great interest 
in the discussion. Please answer seriatim and fully the following 
questions: 

1. What is a scriptural local church, such as "the church at An- 
tioch?" 

2. Is there scriptural authority for a plurality of churches in one 
city, each an independent body, with its own elders or bishops? 

3. Is the Church Street congregation, Nashville, Tenn., a scriptural 
local church? 

4. Do the Scriptures authorize the pecuniary reward of elders or 
bishops for their work as such? 

5. Is it scriptural for evangelists to be the teachers of churches 
which have scriptural elders or bishops? 

But little is said of the extent or limit of a church of 
God in the New Testament ; therefore we are inclined to say 
but little. We have been satisfied fully that the local 
church or a number of local churches is the only manifes- 
tation of a church or the only thing recognized as a church 
or churches of God on earth. The "church universal," as 
it is called, exists on earth only in and through the local 
church. It is addressed only through the local church; it 
is commanded only through commands given to the local 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 123 

church ; it can act only through the local church ; it can be 
approached only through the local church ; it is manifested 
on earth only through the local church. Nothing is done 
or can be done on earth by the church universal, save as it 
is done through the local church or churches. Through 
them alone its life is manifested or its existence known. 
They embody its only existence on earth. Whatever is not 
done by or through the local church in its legitimate action 
is not done by the church universal. While this is true, it 
might have been supposed that the church local, which is 
the pillar and support of the truth, would have been clearly 
defined as to its numbers and geographical limits. But of 
this almost nothing is said. 

1. We have studied the question with care as to what 
constitutes a church of God according to the Scriptures. 
We reached the conclusion that one single individual in a 
community, worshiping God according to his appointments, 
embodies all the essential elements of a church of God. 
He is called out, separated from the world, consecrated to 
God in life, and, observing his ordinances, he constitutes a 
church of God. We remember some years ago taking this 
position in the presence of Brother Fall. He dissented so 
far as to say it took two individuals to constitute a church 
of God. If there be other servants of God in the commu- 
nity, it is their duty to meet together to encourage, 
strengthen, and help one another; but as to the distance 
they should come to worship together, we have never found 
an intimation in the Bible. This seems to be left to the 
judgment of the individuals. Where God has made provi- 
sion, we insist that it is sacrilegious presumption for man 
to devise, invent, or add to these provisions ; where God has 
made no provisions, human judgment must be left free. 
We dare say different communities will and ought to act 
differently. An old brother in Wilson County last year 
told us for years he and his wife rode sixteen miles to 
church and returned, making thirty-two miles horseback 
ride to church, for years, and seldom missing a fair day. 
But few would do this. A brother moved from Middle Ten- 
nessee to West Tennessee. He found no church; but the 
first Lord's day after his arrival, in an upper room (he had 
gotten possession of only the second story of his house) he 
and his sister and wife attended to the Lord's Supper. 
They constituted a church of God. Such zeal is never left 
long alone. How near another church must be to them to 
make it wrong to constitute a church, the Bible gives no 
intimation. We can give no judgment. In large cities it 
is found impracticable for persons to attend church at a 



124 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

distance that would be regarded as convenient in the coun- 
try. Several reasons can be given for this. 

God has certainly made no restrictions or given no direc- 
tions as to the nearness or distance apart of churches. 
Where he has left human judgment free, it should have no 
restrictions thrown around it. It would undoubtedly be 
sinful to organize two congregations in the same commu- 
nity based upon any bad feeling one toward another upon 
any social, family, race, or pecuniary distinctions, because 
division on such grounds is specifically warned against and 
condemned in the Scriptures. No Jew and Gentile church 
could exist on such ground in the same community. I be- 
lieve it is sinful for the whites and blacks to separate into 
different churches on the basis of race antipathies. 

I would, then, define a scriptural church to be the disci- 
ple or disciples of Christ in a community who shape their 
lives according to his teachings and keep his ordinances as 
he has delivered them in the Holy Scriptures. 

2. There certainly is clear evidence of more than one 
church in a city. This is to be found in Paul's letter to the 
Romans, in which he sends greeting to the church meeting 
in their (Aquila and Priscilla's) house, which indicates 
there were other churches meeting in other houses. This 
letter to the Romans is supposed to have been written from 
Corinth. He says in this letter: "The churches of Christ 
salute you." This could hardly have been said of the 
churches at large, and doubtless means: "The churches of 
Christ in Corinth [where he was when writing] salute you." 
This would indicate a plurality of churches in Corinth. A 
church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla is also spoken 
of in the letter to the Corinthians. There were undoubt- 
edly a plurality of churches in one city. I have never seen 
a particle of evidence that two churches were under the 
same eldership. The letters are addressed, it is true, to 
the "church of God at Corinth;" but this does not imply 
they were all under one eldership, any more than it implies 
they all met at one place. Were a document addressed to 
the Masonic body at Memphis, it would be understood that 
all the different associations of Masons were addressed ; but 
it would not indicate that they were under one corps of offi- 
cers. Paul says he persecuted the church ; yet the churches 
were in many cities far apart. Different associations of 
people, having like laws and a common purpose, may be 
referred to collectively as one body, when the address ap- 
plies equally and alike to all. The new Revision (Acts 9: 
31) says: "The church throughout all Judea and Samaria 
and Galilee." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 125 

To speak of the church of God in Kentucky, in Tennes- 
see, in Mississippi, would be entirely proper, yet would not 
indicate they were consolidated together under one board 
of officers. No more does it indicate this concerning the 
church in Corinth or in Rome, especially as Paul in the same 
letters indicates clearly that there were churches in those 
cities. 

Again, I do not see why all the disciples in a city should 
be consolidated into one organic body, any more than all the 
disciples in a county or State. Were the disciples numerous 
in New York or London, or even scattered in different por- 
tions of these cities, the difficulty of one board of officers 
looking after them would be greater than for one board of 
officers to look after all the disciples in some counties or 
even States. Why should there be limitation to the num- 
ber of churches in a city, but none to the number in a county 
or State? Has God given those in the county the right to 
suit their convenience, but not those in a city? 

While churches have been injured in some cases by sub- 
divisions and jealousies, we are satisfied that greater evil 
results from improper ideas of the objects and ends of 
church existence than from fewness in numbers. The ob- 
ject of churches is not to attract and entertain, but to wor- 
ship God. It is not to even entertain one another and be 
popular, but to become acquainted with one another, sym- 
pathize with one another, counsel and help one another in 
trials, troubles, and difficulties of life. In order to do this, 
they must know one another. Every member of a congre- 
gation ought to know every other member of that congre- 
gation — know him as a man, a brother, in fellowship and 
harmony with every other member; ought to know his 
weakness and strength, his wants and his abilities. 

Read Paul's description of the intimate relations of the 
members of the same body, and ask yourself if our ordi- 
nary congregations in which half the members have no ac- 
quaintance with or care for the other half is not a base bur- 
lesque on everything like true church fellowship — true 
brotherly sympathy and true Christian helpfulness one of. 
another. 

The object of the church with reference to the world is to 
convert it to Christ. In proportion to numbers, wealth, 
and talents, the smaller-sized congregations, when content 
to conform themselves to the ends of church existence as 
laid down in the Scriptures and herein set forth, are much 
more efficient in converting the world than the large ones. 
It is only when they attempt unscriptural ends that they are 
less efficacious than large ones in proportion to numbers. 



126 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

When they attempt to be places of fashionable resort and 
to furnish attractive entertainment for the irreligious in 
and out of the church, they are less efficient than moderate- 
sized congregations. 

But in the Scriptures there are absolutely no restrictions 
or regulations to determine how near together, or how far 
apart, how few or how numerous, congregations shall be. 
We are opposed unalterably to any restrictions where God 
has imposed none. What he has left to human judgment 
must be decided by human judgment, without laws or reg- 
ulations from any. That mistakes in this, as in all matters 
that are left to human discretion, occur, we believe. That 
they as often occur in maintaining but one congregation 
where several ought to exist as in having two or three 
where there ought to be but one, we fully believe. 

If two or three or a dozen worshiping assemblies ought 
to exist under one official board, it would inevitably resolve 
itself into one bishop or ruler over all, with one or more 
subordinates in each worshiping assembly. This is dio- 
cesan prelacy, and our Methodist friends are right in hav- 
ing an elder over a number of churches in a district. And 
we cannot see any objection to having these districts under a 
still higher official, a bishop, and these under a still higher 
authority, with one or more heads. It seems to me this idea 
necessarily leads to the destruction of congregational ex- 
istence, and does not lead to, but is itself, the metropolitan- 
ism that culminated in the papacy. 

It is right for congregations to plant new churches 
around them, to watch and care for them until they can care 
for themselves. The innate love of power in man tempts 
him to retain control over these new churches as adding to 
his power and dignity. 

Hence the growth in primitive times of dioceses around 
the cities, with the bishop of the city church bishop of all 
the churches around planted by the city church. The work 
of planting churches around and caring for them ought to 
be done, but the evil that grows out of it ought to be 
guarded against. 

We certainly think, if, in the judgment of the congrega- 
tion, it is better that two or three different worshiping as- 
sembles should exist within a certain territory, whether in 
city or country, it is better that each should have its own 
distinct eldership so soon as talent for this work is devel- 
oped in the worshiping assembly. One law applies to both 
city and country. These church plantings ought not to be 
done factiously, but by the agreement of the congregation. 
Action on this matter ought to be governed by the Scripture 
laws of unity and deference and submission one to another. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 127 

3. As to the points involved in these queries, I would cer- 
tainly say the Church Street congregation is a scriptural 
church. So is the one in East Nashville. So would the one 
on Gay Street be, if not based upon a color line or race an- 
tipathies. 

4. The Scriptures certainly teach it is right for the 
church to pecuniarily reward elders, bishops, deacons, or 
any other class of persons who labor for the church, who 
spend time and talent for the church so as to interfere with 
their making a livelihood at other callings. And I cannot 
regard as honest and manly any church or individual that 
would appropriate or even accept the service of any indi- 
vidual in any capacity and then according to ability refuse 
or fail to reward him for his time and service. Every hon- 
est and manly spirit in a church desires to bear his share 
in all church service and burdens. This does not, however, 
justify a Christian in refusing to do a needed work in his 
power if others refuse to do their duty. He must do his 
duty as he is able and leave the others with themselves and 
with God. The double honor to which the elders who labor 
in word and doctrine are entitled, embraces, beyond all 
doubt, pecuniary help. 

The principle is laid down, "Thou shalt not muzzle the ox 
when he treadeth out the corn" — that is, he who serves in 
the affairs of the church, from sweeping the floor to teach- 
ing the members, is, according to the ability of the church 
and his services and needs, entitled to live out of the offer- 
ings to the church. 

5. We do not believe an evangelist ought to be a perma- 
nent teacher in a church with scriptural bishops or elders. 
No one is perfect in his work; some most excellent elders 
or bishops fail themselves to be competent laborers in word 
and doctrine. It is their duty when not able to fully teach 
to secure the needed teaching from others. It is right for 
them to call in the services of an evangelist who is capable 
of rendering the needed teaching. But this should only be 
temporary. D. L. 

CIRCUMCISION, HOW NOTHING. 

Brother Sewell: (1) In 1 Cor. 7: 19 we find the following: "Cir- 
cumcision is nothing, . . . but the keeping of the commandments 
of God." Does not this seem to lessen the importance of keeping the 
commandments? (2) In Matt. 13: 10 the disciples asked Jesus: 
"Why speakest thou unto them in parables?" He said: "Because it 
is given unto you to know the mysteries, . . . but to them it is 
not given." How about this? 

(1) I do not see that the passage you name underesti- 
mates the commands of God in any sense. The apostle had 



128 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

just been teaching husbands and wives to remain husbands 
and wives and faithfully live the Christian life, and for the 
believing husband or wife not to leave the unbelieving one, 
but that they should live on together, and that in that way 
the one not a Christian may also be converted and saved. 
Then he went on to teach the Jewish and Gentile Christians 
not to have any trouble over circumcision ; that the Jewish 
Christians were to recognize Gentile Christians without any 
regard to circumcision, and Gentiles to do likewise toward 
the Jews; that circumcision was nothing, as it had ceased 
with the law of Moses and was no longer in force, as is 
taught elsewhere. But the thing for all of them to do was 
to go right on continuing to obey the commandments of God 
in living the Christian life. The apostle did not mean in 
this passage the commands of the law of Moses, for these 
were already set aside. He meant the commands of God in 
the new covenant, not the old; that they should not break 
fellowship as Christians over any of the relations named in 
that connection, but should continue to obey the word of 
God in living the Christian life. 

(2) In this passage Jesus was talking to his disciples, 
and did not mean that God had passed by others in like cir- 
cumstances as they had been, and that he did for those dis- 
ciples what he did not for others in the same condition they 
had been in. Their superior condition was evidently from 
the fact that the disciples had utilized the light as it had 
been given. When John, the immerser, gave the first light 
regarding the kingdom of heaven, they embraced it, ac- 
cepted what John preached ; then when Christ came into his 
public ministry, they accepted him as a divine teacher, and 
had continued with him, listening to his wonderful teaching, 
and thus learning more and more, and still remaining with 
him, catching items day by day regarding the coming king- 
dom, thus utilizing every opportunity to learn things con- 
cerning the kingdom of heaven. But the masses of the 
Jewish people closed their eyes and ears against every ray 
of light that had been thus far developed, and were still in 
darkness because they would not accept the light as it shone 
out around them. This same state of things continued. 
The disciples still needed the light as little by little it shone 
upon them till Jesus had died, and the Holy Spirit came 
mightily upon the apostles and through them completed all 
needed light regarding the whole matter of human redemp- 
tion and the kingdom of heaven. And to this day the same 



s\ 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 129 

principle is true. The New Testament contains the full 
light of Christianity, and yet only a few open their eyes and 
ears and take it in, and will die in their sins, it being wholly 
their own fault. God is still holding out the light, but the 
masses continue to refuse it. 

COLLECTION, THE, ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Cor. 16: 2. Does it mean 
for each member of the church of Christ to lay by for himself or her- 
self, as the case may be, or does it mean that each one must cast into 
the treasury upon the first day of every week? Please tell, also, to 
what the term gatherings refers. Does it refer to gathering up their 
nickels and dimes, or does it refer to the people's coming together? 

I copy this from page 553 of the Gospel Advocate for 
1903: "There certainly is a word that means 'putting it 
into the treasury/ First they are commanded: 'Upon the 
first day of the week let each one place [tithetoo, a verb 
meaning to place, in the imperative mood] by itself, put- 
ting it into the treasury [thesauridzoon, a participle from 
the verb which means to treasure up, or to place in the 
treasury for safe-keeping'].' Thesauridzoo is defined to 
store, to treasure up, to lay up in store, to preserve. The 
noun thesauros is defined a store laid up, treasure, a store- 
house or treasure house, magazine; in Herodotus, especially, 
the treasury of a temple, any receptacle for valuables, a 
chest, a casket. The word meaning put it into the treasury 
after it is placed by itself is certainly in the sentence, and 
the only question that can arise is : Was it to be placed in 
the man's own treasury or that of the church?" To place 
by itself means "to separate it from what he keeps as his 
own," to take it out of his own treasury. Then it is to be 
placed in the treasury, "that there be no gatherings when 
I come." It can mean nothing else than it must be placed in 
the treasury of the church ready for Paul when he reached 
Corinth. 

COLLECTION, HOW TO BE TAKEN. 

Brother Lipscomb: There is some trouble here about the way the 
collections are made. Some of the brethren want to go forward and 
lay it on the table after partaking of the Lord's Supper, while some 
of them want to pass the plate and conduct the ordinance as the sects 
do. 

I have never found a word of direction as to how the con- 
tribution was made — whether it was put under the table or 
on the table or whether there was any table at all or not. I 
think the service would be acceptable if it was performed 
in a stable, in a barn, or in the mountain cove where nei- 
ther tables nor baskets were ever seen. Some of the col- 



130 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lections were placed at the feet of the apostles. When peo- 
ple undertake to make laws how things should be done 
where God has made none, they commit sin. When the 
Lord tells a thing shall be done without telling how to do it, 
he expects men to do it the best way they can. It is no sin 
to wear clothes like the sects wear, nor to live in houses like 
the sects live in, nor to eat food like the seats eat, and I do 
not see it is any harm to place a collection in the plate, in a 
basket on the table or under the table, if the sects do it. 
Brethren who fuss over such untaught questions are very 
anxious for a fuss. Had God a special way for doing it, 
he would have let it be known. Do it the way that it can 
be done with least trouble to all. 

COMING, THE SECOND, OF CHRIST. 

Brother Sewell: I preached at Bellwood to-day, and found before 
I left the church house that there was considerable controversy with 
the brethren about Rev: 1: 7, which reads thus: "Behold, he cometh 
with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced 
him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even 
so, Amen." The question is this: Does this verse point forward to 
the second coming 1 of Christ or back to the destruction of Jerusalem? 
If it refers to Jerusalem, what mean these expressions: "And every 
eye shall see him," "and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because 
of him?" Now, those brethren know that no man's final salvation de- 
pends upon a knowledge of this verse; still, they are endeavoring to 
obey the injunction, "Study," that they may learn all they can and 
do all they learn. They have agreed to leave it to your pen. 

Can the above have a twofold meaning and refer to both? 

We think it clear from all the surroundings that the com- 
ing of the Lord mentioned here is yet in the future and has 
reference to the end of the world and the final judgment. 
In the first place, according to the best chronology we can 
get, this passage was written some twenty-five years after 
the destruction of Jerusalem had taken place. Jerusalem 
was destroyed about the year 71, and this passage was writ- 
ten in 96, and for this reason could not refer to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem, unless there were something in connec- 
tion with the passage to refer us backward in regard to 
time. And there is nothing of the sort; but, on the con- 
trary, the indications in the connection are that future time 
is meant. The first verse says: "The Revelation of Jesus 
Christ, which God gave unto him, to show unto his servants 
things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and 
signified it by his angel unto his servant John." This 
shows that the revelations made to John pertained to the 
future at the time they were made. This puts the coming 
of Christ spoken of unquestionably in the future. And, 
in the next place, the language of the passage itself puts 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 131 

the event in the future, such as, "and every eye shall see 
him" and "all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of 
him." The expressions shall see, shall wail refer to future 
time — something that was to take place after the language 
was used ; and it was used or told through John long after 
the destruction of Jerusalem, and still says they shall see 
him. 

Christ himself taught while here on earth, as in Matt. 25 : 
31, 32: "When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and 
all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the 
throne of his glory: and before him shall be gathered all 
nations : and he shall separate them one from another, as a 
shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats." All nations 
of all time will be gathered before the judgment seat, and 
the wicked of all nations will wail because of him, know- 
ing that they will be condemned by him. They that pierced 
him will be in that assembly and will see him, and we have 
no doubt but this is the coming referred to. What is said 
in the passage cannot be made to harmonize with any other 
occasion that ever occurred on this earth; but everything 
mentioned in the passage will perfectly harmonize with 
every passage that can be found on the subject of Christ's 
final coming to judge the world ; and when we get the true 
meaning of the passage, it fully agrees with every other one 
on the same subject. E. G. S. 

COMMANDMENT, BREAKING ONE. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain James 2 : 10. Does it mean that 
he who breaks one of the commandments is guilty of the sin of break- 
ing all of them? Is it required of the sinner in turning to God, be- 
fore obeying the gospel, to restore everything gotten fraudulently? 
If so, how can a person who has spent a number of years cheating 
and defrauding ever make reparation? 

It means the same as Jesus : "Whosoever therefore shall 
break one of these least commandments, and shall teach 
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven." (Matt. 5: 19.) That is, when a man presumes 
to change the least of God's appointments, he assumes the 
right to change the laws of God, and that is as bad as to 
change the whole law. When one assumes to change or nul- 
lify a command of God, he assumes the position which be- 
longs to God alone. 

It is not required to undo his evil doings before he can 
come to God. He is required to repent, to change his pur- 
pose, to cease to sin. His life after he comes into Christ is 
to be spent in doing works worthy of his repentance. No 
matter how much a man has wronged others, he has 



132 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

wronged God much more. He has cheated and defrauded 
God every day he lives in sin, and the highest obligation is 
to turn and correct his wrong against God and then go for- 
ward to correct those against man. He is to correct all as 
soon as it is in his power. 

COMMANDMENTS, ARE THE TEN, STILL IN FORCE? 

Please explain through the columns of the Gospel Advocate the law 
of the Ten Commandments. You say they have been abolished and 
taken out of the way. I want to know in what sense they have been 
taken out of the way. Do you not think they are binding on us? 
Do you not think it wrong to violate any of the Ten Commandments? 

The Scriptures plainly declare that the ministration writ- 
ten on stones has been done away. (Gal. 3: 7-11.) These 
commandments of the law were taken out of the way, nailed 
to the cross, by the Son of God. The law given prior to the 
coming of Jesus is not in force now. It was a schoolmas- 
ter to bring us to Christ. When Christ was come, then the 
law was taken out of the way. We are no longer under the 
schoolmaster. The ten commands, as given by Moses, are 
taken out of the way as part of this law. The same com- 
mands are binding on us now only so far as they are re- 
peated, reenacted, by Jesus Christ. They are in force, not 
because commanded in the law by Moses, but because com- 
manded in the gospel of Jesus Christ. To what extent have 
these laws been reenacted in the New Testament or com- 
manded by Christ? The principle embodied in all of them, 
except the law to keep the Sabbath, has been reenacted by 
Christ in the New Testament — the same laws in different 
language. The Sabbath was the seventh day (Saturday) 
under the Christian dispensation. The first day of the 
week was set apart as the day for public worship of God. 
We do not doubt that the example of consecrating one day 
to the service of God, as set forth in the observance of the 
Sabbath, indicates that one day should be devoted to that 
service ; but the day is not the same, nor are the rules reg- 
ulating it the same. 

COMMON, ALL THINGS IN. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain Acts 2: 44, 45, 
which reads as follows : "And all that believed were together, and had 
all things common; and sold their possessions and goods, and parted 
them to all men, as every man had need." I want to know if that 
means that we shall sell all that we have or not, or only give to those 
that cannot help themselves, or those who are afflicted. 

The passage teaches plainly that the disciples at Jerusa- 
lem sold their possessions and had all things common. But 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 133 

other passages, in other places, teach plainly enough that it 
was not a fixed and universal law that all Christians should 
do so. But Christians should hold what they have in read- 
iness to be used for the cause of the Master when needed. 

"CONCEIVED IN SIN," HOW. 

Brother Sewell: Please give in the Gospel Advocate an exegesis of 
Ps. 51: 5, which reads as follows: "I was shapen in iniquity; and in 
sin did my mother conceive me." 

David did not mean that he was born a sinner, as some 
would have us believe; nor do I suppose he meant to say 
that his mother was a sinner when he was conceived. This 
psalm is supposed to be the confession and prayer of David 
after his sin with the wife of Uriah and he had Uriah put 
to death. But while none are born sinners, all men through 
weakness of the flesh are liable to sin, and are required at all 
times to guard against sin. David had this weakness, this 
susceptibility to sin; and so did his mother, and so do all 
men and women. All have this weakness, and David was 
making a full confession of his sin and praying God to have 
mercy upon him, and was thus presenting this general 
weakness, or liability to sin, in all men, even in himself, 
and that he, like all others, inherited this weakness, and 
very earnestly confesses it and prays God to forgive him — 
to blot out his iniquity. The passage certainly has no ref- 
erence to hereditary total depravity, as has generally been 
claimed. It is only a full confession of his sin and a presen- 
tation of the susceptibility in all human beings to sin, and 
that he had fallen under that same weakness. 

CONFESSED, WHEN MUST CHRIST BE? 

Brother Sewell: A and B become members of the church. A con- 
fessed Christ before baptism; B confessed after baptism. Which ren- 
dered acceptable obedience? 

There are two or three things to be considered in this 
question. In the first place, is a formal confession of Christ 
a condition of pardon, of becoming a Christian? If it is, 
then it would be necessary to ascertain where God has 
placed it — that is, if God has given any specific order in 
which the conditions of pardon are to come. It is easy to 
determine that faith is a condition of pardon and that it is 
the first step to be taken after hearing the gospel. Jesus 
said to the apostles: "Preach the gospel to every creature. 
He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." It comes 
before baptism ; that is certain. But in another passage it 
is equally certain that repentance also comes before bap- 



134 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tism, and it comes between the act of believing and of being 
baptized ; for, on the day of Pentecost, Peter said to believ- 
ers who had asked what to do, "Repent, and be baptized," 
showing that repentance comes between the first act of be- 
lieving and that of being baptized. These two passages 
show three conditions of pardon, and the order in which 
they come in the sinner's obedience — first, faith ; second, re- 
pentance ; third, to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. 
No one that believes the Bible can question that these three 
things are conditions of salvation, nor can he question 
that the above is the order in which they come in obedience 
to the gospel. But when we look in the same chapter, 
which contains an account of the conversion of about three 
thousand souls, for the formal confession, we fail to find it 
mentioned in any way. Now, if a formal confession is a 
condition of pardon, is it not strange that it should be en- 
tirely left out on so important an occasion ? But such is the 
case ; and this fact of itself is sufficient to start a doubt as 
to whether it is a condition of pardon or not. 

We also look on over the thousands more that were con- 
verted till we get to the latter part of Acts 8. There, in 
the King James Version, we find a formal confession made 
by the eunuch. But when we look into other and later ver- 
sions, we do not find it. It is left out of the version called 
"Living Oracles" and out of the late Revised Version, and 
is said to be wanting in the oldest and most authentic manu- 
scripts. Yet there are said to be some manuscripts that 
have it. But many of those said to be the best scholars 
leave it out. So, leaving that out, there is not a case in all 
the cases of conversion on record in the days of the apostles 
that has it, and there is no allusion to it in the Epistles that 
definitely makes out such a case. 

These facts, to say the very least, cast some doubt as to 
the confession being a condition of pardon. But preachers 
have only a right to baptize believers, and they need to be 
careful not to baptize unbelievers. This being true, and 
the fact that the eunuch's confession is said to be in some 
ancient manuscripts, there is no better way, or one that has 
any better show of scripture, than for every preacher to 
have one desiring to be baptized to make this confession be- 
fore baptism. This would be positive evidence to the 
preacher that the one to be baptized is a believer. So we 
always call for this confession unless we have undoubted 
evidence that the one to be baptized has already made the 
confession. But while we think it proper to say this much 
in favor of the confession before baptism, we would not 
intimate that a believing penitent baptized without this con- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 135 

fession would not be saved, nor that it would be better for 
him to make it afterwards to fill out something lacking. 
But we do understand that every child of God should be 
ready at all times through his whole life to confess Christ 
with the mouth when need requires and to stand ^for him 
and die for his sake if need be. 

CONFESSION, IS IT ESSENTIAL? 

Do you think the confession is essential, and must it be made with 
the mouth? When and where do the sects make the confession? 

"The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy 
heart : that is, the word of faith, which we preach ; that if 
thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt 
believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the 
dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believ- 
eth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is 
made unto salvation." (Rom. 10: 8-10.) This is the scrip- 
ture requiring confession. It is addressed to the Christians 
at Rome. Whether it refers to a formal confession before 
baptism, I somewhat doubt, for the following reasons: In 
the commission, in its fulfillment on the day of Pentecost, 
and in the examples of conversion presented in the Acts of 
the Apostles there is no example of a formal confession be- 
ing required as a precedent to baptism, unless the case of 
the eunuch be regarded as such. In reference to this, it is 
claimed by the textuary cities generally that the confes- 
sion there recorded is an interpolation. The context and 
circumstances would indicate that just such a confession 
was made. It is also clear that Philip was not seeking a 
formal confession, but evidence of faith. Whatever con- 
fession was made came in response to this seeking. The 
natural evidence of faith in the heart is the confession with 
the mouth. When Philip said, "If thou believest with all 
thine heart, thou mayest," the natural response would be: 
"I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." But it was 
made to manifest the presence of faith, not to make a for- 
mal confession. But if this does not require the confes- 
sion, the singular fact is presented that in the Scriptures a 
condition of salvation is left out of all the precepts and ex- 
amples concerning remission and is to be found only in a 
reference in a letter to Christians as to what had been re- 
quired. Then it is necessary that at every step of the reli- 
gious life, even after one has grown old in the service of the 
Lord, with the mouth confession must be made unto salva- 
tion and with the heart he must believe unto righteousness. 
He must live by and walk through faith unto the end. It is 
just as necessary that man should believe unto righteous- 



136 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ness with the heart the last day he lives as the first. By 
faith man is led forward at every step in the path of right- 
eousness, and at every step man must confess his faith in 
the Savior. 

It is necessary that confession of Christ should be made 
at all times or Christ will not own us ; but that any specific 
or formal confession was required before baptism, more 
than at any step of his religious life, is not clear. Confes- 
sion of Christ in our words is necessary. It is necessary in 
coming to Christ; it is necessary in all the Christian life. 
I am sure the questions and obedience on the day of Pente- 
cost were an acceptable confession. So at the house of Cor- 
nelius and in all other instances. Any words or acts that 
declare to the world that we believe in Christ and trust him 
as our Savior is a confession of him. D. L. 

CONFESSION, IS THERE A FORMAL? 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you please tell me why it is that the 
church of Christ requires the sinner to make a public confession as a 
condition of pardon from past sins in the absence of a command or 
example to do so in the New Testament? 

I never ask for a formal confession as a condition of for- 
giveness. I ask, "Do you believe ?" as an assurance of faith 
in Christ; and unless they believe in Christ, baptism is of 
no avail. I do not believe a formal confession was required 
by Jesus or the apostles in order to baptism, nor ought it to 
be done now with that purpose in view; but it is right to 
require faith in Christ as a condition of baptism and the 
remission of sins. The most direct way to obtain this is to 
ask them if they believe in Christ. 

CONFESSION OF SIN. 

Brother Mullinicks desires to know what we meant by 
saying: "We never could exactly see the necessity of con- 
fessing a public sin." To confess a thing is to make it 
known. We cannot exactly see the necessity of making a 
thing known that is already known. We are to confess our 
faults and to turn from them, make them known and indi- 
cate our willingness and purpose to quit them. Now, when 
a sin is well known, the thing is not to make it known, but 
to indicate or make known our purpose to quit the wrong. 
The confessing the fault is merely an incident to turning 
from it. The Bible requires us to confess or make known 
our sins that are concealed. Confessing faults must have 
reference to this. It requires us to repent of this course, 
to express our sorrow for it. This is confessing our re- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 137 

pentance — making it known. When a sin is known, the 
sin is not to be confessed, but the repentance of that sin is 
the thing needed to be confessed or made known. But when 
a sin is not known, the sin itself is to be confessed. The 
confession of a sin is valuable only as it indicates a purpose 
to turn from it. Our purpose was to impress the idea that 
the fact that the fault must be confessed indicated clearly 
that it was a secret fault that was referred to. The con- 
fession of a fault well known would be merely an incident 
in the confession of our purpose to turn from the fault. 

D L. 
CONFESSION OF SIN, MUST IT BE PUBLIC? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain through the Gos- 
pel Advocate if a brother sins against the church — say, for instance, 
drunkenness — and only confesses that sin to the elders and brethren 
privately, is that sufficient, or do the Scriptures require him to get up 
publicly and in person make a public confession of the sin he has com- 
mitted? 

A member who has done a public wrong, such as drunk- 
enness, is never humble enough to be forgiven till he is hum- 
ble enough to publicly take away the reproach that he has 
publicly brought upon the church. Whenever such men are 
ashamed to go before the whole church and make their con- 
fession there, either by their own mouth or through some 
one else while they are present, to give their personal sanc- 
tion to it, their repentance is not sincere, as we think, and 
there is not much hope of permanent reformation in such 
cases. A very deep and earnest repentance and humility 
are necessary to a reformation of life. And it is a false 
idea that men have that it is degrading to go before the con- 
gregation and publicly acknowledge a public wrong. The 
wrong itself is already public, already known by all the 
church, and the stain of it felt by all ; and all are entitled to 
hear the confession of the wrong and to enjoy the benefits 
resulting from such confession, which is calculated to have 
a good effect upon all in reminding them of the weakness of 
humanity. A man is doing himself incalculable injury in 
trying to hide a public offense. No one who does it is truly 
honest with himself, his brethren, or with his Lord and 
Master. He is only, therefore, adding the sin of hypocrisy 
and falsehood to the public sin committed when he attempts 
such a thing and is adding sin to sin. 

Let a man be a man and confess the whole truth, and then 
he is in a condition to be forgiven, both by the church and by 
our Heavenly Father. Christians are commanded to con- 
fess their faults one to another that they may be healed, 
and they should be honest, truthful, and faithful in so doing. 



138 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

When the offense is wholly of a private character, only 
involving the rights of an individual member, then it may 
be sufficient to confess it to him alone ; or if it be an offense 
only against God, then let him go to God with it and con- 
fess it to him alone and pray for pardon, if he does not 
wish men to know it. The confession, therefore, must be 
to the full extent of the parties involved in and injured by 
the wrong, whether to one or more individuals, to the whole 
church, or to God ; and no dodging, hypocrisy, or falsehood 
should be indulged, as that only increases the man's guilt. 

CONSCIENCE VS. CONSCIENCE. 

Much has been written of late about "the law of love," conscience 
and conscientious convictions, in relation to church work. Your able 
pens have thrown much light on these questions, and I have much con- 
fidence in your ability to elucidate any dark subject. Now, please 
give us a solution of the following: A number of the members of a 
local congregation believe that individual and congregational efforts 
fall far short of what should be done for the Lord. Seeing much bet- 
ter results claimed by organized cooperation through a central com- 
mittee, they conscientiously believe it to be their duty to unite their 
congregation with those engaged in this organized cooperation. Other 
members of the same congregation believe that said organization is 
wrong and to unite with it is sinful on their part; hence they are con- 
scientiously opposed to uniting their congregation with those engaged 
in this cooperative work. Here we have conscience opposed to con- 
science. What is to be done but divide? 

Conscience against conscience — this is no unusual thing 
in this life. A man's conscience depends upon what he be- 
lieves to be right. Therefore a man's conscience depends 
upon the foundation of his faith. If a man's faith is 
founded upon what the word of God says, then his faith 
stands in the word and wisdom of God ; but if a man's faith 
is founded upon what men say outside of the word of God, 
then his faith stands in the words and wisdom of men only. 
The creeds say sprinkling and pouring are baptism, as well 
as a burial in water. It is only uninspired men who say 
sprinkling and pouring are baptism, while it is the word of 
God that says "buried with him by baptism into death." 

When a man believes that sprinkling and pouring are 
baptism, he only believes the words of men. His faith 
stands in the wisdom of men and not in the wisdom of God. 
Therefore his conscience, founded upon the word and wis- 
dom of men, cannot claim one thing in connection with it 
above man's wisdom. Such a conscience is worth nothing 
in the world to a man beyond human wisdom and human 
power. And since human wisdom is unable to direct man 
in religion, and since human power is unable to save a sin- 
gle soul, such a conscience is worth nothing, so far as sav- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 139 

ing the soul is concerned. No matter how strongly con- 
scientious a man may be in these things, it is all human 
from beginning to end. But when a man believes that bap- 
tism is a burial, he believes what God says, and his faith, 
therefore, is founded in the word, the wisdom, and the 
power of God ; and his conscience, therefore, is upon God's 
word and power, and is worth to him all that the word, 
the wisdom, and the power of God are worth. Now, whose 
conscience in this matter ought to prevail ? 

The one that believes in sprinkling also believes in im- 
mersion ; and in giving up his conscience on sprinkling, he 
is only giving up what is human, the best that can be said 
of it. But the other man cannot give up the burial idea in 
baptism, because the word of God says that, and to give it 
up is to give up the word of God. This he cannot do. The 
man whose conscience is on sprinkling only gives up what 
men say, while he still retains what God says ; but the man 
whose conscience is on a burial for baptism has nothing 
else ; he does not believe that sprinkling is anything at all, 
having its foundation in uninspired men. If he gives up 
burial, he gives baptism up entirely, and thus rejects that 
much of the word of God and has nothing left that his con- 
science can stand on, while the sprinkler has the word of 
God left in all its fullness and power to stand on. Now, 
we say, again, whose conscience has the best foundation? 
In reality, the matter in which these consciences are op- 
posed to each other is only on what men say. Both accept 
what God says, while one accepts what men say and the 
other does not. Both are agreed so far as the burial is 
concerned and are one upon the word of God, and their con- 
sciences are one on that. Only on what men say do they 
differ. Both can give up what men say and lose nothing, 
but both cannot give up what God says without losing all. 

We regard the very same principle true in the matter re- 
ferred to above — that is, regarding missionary societies. 
The apostolic churches contributed of their means to sustain 
the cause. At Jerusalem the contributions were so liberal 
that all the strangers there as members and all the preach- 
ers were thus supported. The church at Antioch sent 
means to the suffering in Judea. The church at Corinth 
and the churches in Macedonia, by the directions of the 
apostle Paul, also sent contributions to the poor saints in 
Jerusalem, and the contributions were made by them on the 
first day of the week ; and this was all done by the word of 
God, and not by a missionary society ; and if there were any 
poor preachers among the poor saints at Jerusalem, they 



140 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

were fed and sustained with the others and just like any 
other poor. 

Again, we read in the word of the Lord that the church at 
Philippi sent to Paul's necessities once and again. This 
was all done by the church, and not by a missionary society. 
These things we read in the word of God, and are at the 
same time told both what the churches did and how they did 
it. But there is not one word said about a missionary so- 
ciety in the whole history of the church of God in the New 
Testament. The man, therefore, that believes the churches, 
as such, should support the poor and sustain preachers in 
sounding out the word of God has his faith founded in the 
word of God, and a conscience founded on this faith is 
founded on the word and wisdom of God, and he can as 
easily give up the words of eternal truth as to give up his 
conscience founded on them. God is the author of such a 
conscience. 

But the man who believes in a missionary society formed 
by men believes in what men say, and his faith stands in 
the words and wisdom of men, and of men only, and unin- 
spired men at that ; and a conscience resulting from such 
faith as this is a conscience from men only. God has noth- 
ing to do in forming any such a conscience. It is also true 
that the society man believes it to be right to work through 
the churches and as churches, so that in what God says the 
faith and consciences of these two men have the very same 
foundation. Both are from God and by his word and his 
authority. The trouble in the matter is that one of the men 
has another conscience, that is formed only upon the words 
and wisdom of men, and he can give up this and not lose a 
thing that comes from God ; but the other man, whose con- 
science is founded only on what God says, cannot yield his 
conscience without giving up the word of God that will 
stand when every missionary society ever formed by men 
will sink into oblivion. 

No man who has his conscience formed upon the word of 
God can afford to give it up. His eternal all depends upon 
keeping the word of God; but no man's salvation depends 
upon doing what men say, nor does any man believe such a 
thing. Therefore no man has a conscience on missionary 
societies that he believes his soul's salvation depends upon. 
Society men admit this much by saying : "God has revealed 
no plan of spreading the gospel ; this is all left to man's own 
wisdom." If God has revealed no plan at all, then it is cer- 
tain he has not revealed the society. 

The difference, then, in the two opposing consciences in 
these things is that one is founded upon the word of God, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 141 

and thus comes from God, is formed by the power, word, 
and wisdom of God, and is, therefore, as abiding as the 
throne of God, if the man will continue to stand firmly upon 
it ; but the other is founded upon the words and wisdom of 
men, and is, therefore, from men and by men, and worth 
nothing under the heavens to any man so far as his salva- 
tion is concerned, and nothing is lost by giving it up. 

E. G. S. 
CONTRADICTION, NO. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I want you to give me some help 
on the Scriptures. The infidels have a pick at me, claiming that the 
Scriptures do not harmonize. They say one of the writers said that 
Judas went and hanged himself, and another said he fell headlong 
and his bowels gushed out. Please help me to harmonize this. 

The passages are both true and no contradiction between 
them. All we have to do is to believe both, and in so doing 
we have the full history. Matthew tells us that he hanged 
himself. This is true. But Matthew does not pretend to tell 
all that occurred. Luke comes in and tells us of his falling 
headlong, bursting asunder in the midst, and of his bowels 
gushing out. This falling, doubtless, occurred after the 
hanging. Instead of being taken down after he was hanged, 
he fell down and burst asunder, etc. So there is no sort of 
contradiction here. E. G. S. 

CONTRIBUTION, THE LORD'S-DAY. 

What is the proper time during the Lord's-day meeting to make 
the contribution? 

2. What is the proper or right way to make the contribution? 

3. Is it right to appoint a brother to take the contribution and hold 
him as treasurer and pay it out as the congregation orders it done? 
In short, is it right to put in our contributions publicly or give them 
to our treasurer privately? Some of our brethren think that we 
ought to lay by in store, but not hand it out till the church orders it. 
We are somewhat divided on the last point. 

1. There is perhaps no better time to make the contribu- 
tion than just after taking the Lord's Supper. We know 
many congregations which do this, and we think it very ap- 
propriate. 

2. As to the manner of making the contribution, we 
think it does not matter whether the members walk up to 
the table to contribute or whether the deacons carry bas- 
kets around to them as they do the bread and wine. The 
contribution, as we understand it, is a part of the worship 
of Christians on the first day of the week ; and it should be 
done decently and in order as worship of Christians on the 
first day of the week. Christians need not be afraid to 
handle money on the Lord's day if they do it with the proper 



142 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

motive. The doing of what God has commanded to be done 
is worship to him, and he has commanded the contribution 
on the first day of the week, and to attend to it is worship. 

3. It is certainly right to appoint some faithful brother 
to serve the church as treasurer, to keep a strict account 
of all money paid into the treasury, and to pay out as the 
elders may direct, and keep an account of all that is paid out 
also. In this way all that is done is done by the congre- 
gation. And surely the money ought to be paid in regularly 
on the first day of the week, so it will be ready when needed 
and not have to be gathered when the time comes that it 
ought to be paid out. Paul told the Corinthians to have 
their means by the time he should come and not have to 
gather it up after his arrival. 

CONTRIBUTION, IS IT BINDING ON THE FIRST DAY 
OF THE WEEK? 

Are we doing our duty when we refuse to contribute on the first 
day of the week? I meet with brethren almost every day who take 
the position that this was only binding in the apostolic age. If this is 
so, cannot we with the same propriety say that the command to for- 
sake not the assembling of ourselves together on the first day of the 
week has reference to the same period of time? 

There can be no mistake but that the command to con- 
tribute of our means to advance the cause of God on the 
first day of the week is as binding now as it was when Paul 
uttered it, and all who love the Lord well enough to esteem 
it a privilege to give of their means for the good of his 
cause will so regard it ; but those that love their money and 
property more than they love the Lord will always find 
some excuse for not giving. Arguments will not convince 
such, for they will not listen to them. The first thing to be 
done with such is to work upon their hearts and get them to 
love their Savior, to love his cause, and to love the souls of 
men, and to be willing to sacrifice their own personal inter- 
est in behalf of others, and then there will be no further 
trouble. Let them once realize that it is more blessed to 
give than to receive, and they will seek opportunities to give 
instead of waiting to be convinced that it is right. Those 
that love the world more than they love the Savior and his 
religion are deceiving themselves if they suppose that they 
are on the road to heaven ; and the sooner they know it, the 
better for them. E. G. S. 

CO-OPERATE, HOW CHURCHES. 

It is clear that the teachers sent messengers to the 
churches to make known their needs and to stir the churches 
to activity in the work of God. Paul not only did this, but 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 143 

with Titus as a messenger, sent by Paul to the church at 
Corinth, was sent another brother, whose praise is through- 
out the churches. "Whether any do inquire of Titus, he is 
my partner and fellow helper concerning you [in stirring 
you up to activity in the grace of giving] : or our brethren 
be inquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and 
the glory of Christ. Wherefore show ye to them, and be- 
fore the churches, the proof of your love, and of our boast- 
ing on your behalf." These messengers were sent by the 
churches which were raising this fund for the poor to aid 
Titus in stirring them up. This shows plainly that 
churches, seeing the necessity of a work that they were not 
able to accomplish, did send messengers to other churches 
to induce them to engage in the work. 

But in carrying out the work of the joint cooperation of 
these churches, they did not lose their church identity, did 
not form a joint organization, did not send delegates to a 
common meeting to act for the churches. They did not 
surrender the control and dispensation of their bounty to a 
joint committee, not even to the apostle Paul. All worked 
in harmony and cooperated together, but each church raised 
its own funds by each member contributing as the Lord 
prospered, on the first day of the week, into the treasury. 
Then each church appointed its own messengers to carry 
and distribute its own funds, and each church wrote letters 
commending its own messengers to those to whom the ben- 
efit was sent. 

It was the farthest possible from an organized association 
of churches through delegates or from a voluntary associ- 
ation formed of the individuals willing to work from dif- 
ferent churches into one new organization. 

A messenger differs widely from a delegate or agent. A 
messenger bears a message to and returns a response. A 
messenger carried a message as to what the church sending 
desired to do and what aid it needed, and received and re- 
turned the response to the church which sent him. When 
this was done, his mission to the churches expired. He had 
no discretionary authority to suggest, discuss, or advise 
plans. The church acted as a whole in sending the mes- 
sage, and the other church as a whole in receiving, acting 
on, and responding to it. The whole work was carried on 
as between churches or an individual and a church. 

A messenger differs from a delegate as a page in a legis- 
lative body does from a member of a conference commit- 
tee, as a bearer of dispatches does from a minister pleni- 
potentiary between nations. A messenger is one who sim- 
ply carries a message. A delegate is one who is delegated 



144 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

or invested with authority to consider, investigate, and 
counsel with the body to whom he is delegated, or with fel- 
low delegates, and decide what is best. He is authorized to 
recommend and act for the body which delegated him. One 
has authority to devise and determine for the body dele- 
gating him; the other conveys the wishes or decisions al- 
ready made by the body. A delegate is authorized to act 
for the church; a messenger bears an account of actions 
already taken by the church. 

A meeting of delegates is a meeting of persons invested 
with the conjoint authority of the churches or bodies send- 
ing delegates. A meeting of delegates represents the con- 
joint authority of the churches who sent the delegates. It 
possesses the authority of all the churches combined. This, 
of course, is an authority greater than that of any one sin- 
gle church represented in the body. There never was a 
meeting composed of delegates from a dozen bodies that 
did not feel itself possessed of greater authority than any 
one of the single bodies represented in the matters concern- 
ing which they were delegated to act, simply because there 
is more force and weight in twelve than in one. Where 
these delegate meetings continue, they gradually engross 
more and more of the authority, and in all points of doubt 
as to where authority is lodged the higher body exerts the 
authority or power. No better example of that can be 
found than in the Congress of the United States in relation 
to the States. It takes no theory to cause this to be so. 
Men the most strenuous in theory for States' rights, when 
elected members of the general government, have been al- 
most as ready to assume power for the greater body as those 
who theorize differently. It just means that in the nature 
of every human being there is an instinct that prompts the 
stronger to overrule and control the weaker. 

Human nature will have to be more radically regenerated 
than it ever has been yet to prevent a delegation from a 
dozen or more congregations feeling that it possesses more 
authority than any one of the churches sending a delegate. 
Every body as naturally and as surely magnifies its office 
and extends its authority and power as human nature works 
for self. 

Now, the messenger was used by the preachers in send- 
ing to the churches to let them know their condition and 
wants; was used by the church in sending help to the 
preachers; was sent by the teacher to the churches to stir 
them up to their duty in helping the poor saints in a dis- 
tant country; was sent by one church to excite others to 
aid it in a work which it was not able to do alone. The 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 145 

examples and proofs of this are clear and unequivocal. 
And this style of cooperation answered all the needs of the 
early churches — weak, few in numbers, and poor, yet scat- 
tered all over the known world. Through these simple 
means of cooperation, in an age without facilities for travel 
or intercommunication between nations, and with narrow, 
but strong, race prejudices to hinder the spread of knowl- 
edge from one tribe, nation, or country to another, with but 
little knowledge of each other's language, the gospel spread 
from tribe to tribe, from city to city, race to race, country 
and nation to country and nation, until within the lifetime of 
an individual the known world was permeated with a 
knowledge of the gospel of the Son of God. He who denies 
that the same means will spead the gospel in this or any age 
to people ready to receive it lacks faith in God. D. L. 

CO-OPERATION, CHURCH. 

Brother Lipscomb: Do you regard the movement among our 
churches which are becoming "living-link" churches — that is, those 
churches which support missionaries direct — as scriptural? If you 
object, on what ground? If you favor it, then would it not be a good 
plan to urge upon all the strong churches? Where no single church 
is able to send a missionary, would you object to two, three, four, or 
five churches uniting and sending one? Would it not be a good plan 
for the brethren opposed to the society to adopt? 

What we ought to do is to endeavor to have this work done. We 
may not agree as to the methods of doing the work, but we all agree 
that the work should be done. It seems to me that you could work 
along this line. If not, why not? 

I believe each church able to do so should sustain a mis- 
sionary or missionaries, both home and foreign. There is 
no distinction as to these in the Bible. But when churches 
go into associations so as to build up these human societies 
that take the work out of the hands of the churches, they 
so do it as to make it support evil. The idea that honors 
and trusts, office and authority, are to be given to men by 
virtue of the money paid is so abhorrent to all the teachings 
and principles of the Scriptures that it amounts to a rejec- 
tion of God. Suppose the State were to sell its offices and 
posts of honor to the highest bidder, what would be thought 
of it? What corruption would it work! It is ten thou- 
sand times more out of harmony with the Christian religion. 
What is the difference in principle between selling indul- 
gences to sin and selling positions of trust and influence in 
the church for money? Any association that does this is 
antichristian in its fundamental and leading principle. 
This whole effort to amass sums under the control of a few 
men who pay for the right to direct and control it is cor- 



146 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

rupting in its influence and must work corruption so long 
as human nature remains as it is. 

If Brother Kinkead is a reader of the Gospel Advocate, 
I do not see why he should ask this latter question. We 
have repeatedly and, continually advocated this cooperation 
of churches ; have given the example time and again of the 
three churches in Nashville, Tenn., agreeing to support 
Brother A. Paul in Armenia; and have given the example 
of the South College Street Church and the church at the 
Nashville Bible School carrying on the tent work in the 
sections around Nashville, by which seven churches were 
planted last year and other weak ones were strengthened, 
and an interest was aroused in still other places that will 
doubtless result in planting other churches. This year 
additional tents have been purchased, and the Tenth Street 
Church will cooperate, and we trust that greater work will 
be done. We have always urged this cooperative work on 
the churches. We did it at Chattanooga, Tenn., when the 
State society was first formed, and besought them to work 
in this way, in which unity and harmony would be pre- 
served. They refused to heed us and introduced the soci- 
ety, which has produced alienation, discord, and division 
among the people of God. I do not believe there has been 
a greater sin committed against God and his churches in 
Tennessee in the last fifty years than was the introduction 
of this unauthorized society, with its division and strife. 

One extreme begets another. In running from this or- 
ganization, others have run to the extreme of refusing all 
cooperation among churches in supporting missionaries. 
There is not the same danger in relying upon public ap- 
peals from and to individuals, because there is no organiza- 
tion formed; but such work will be always irregular and 
desultory. Two or three men can be supported by general 
public appeals ; but there ought to be hundreds of them en- 
gaged in such work, and there would be if the spirit of 
Christianity were active and alive. What a jargon it would 
be for a hundred men to be presenting each his separate 
claim to all the churches! Paul seems to have communi- 
cated with certain churches "as concerning giving and re- 
ceiving." I do not believe the work of sustaining mission- 
aries will be effectualy done until each congregation selects 
and sustains or helps to sustain its own missionary and 
makes his support its work, to be regularly and conscien- 
tiously attended to. Let each church as it is able support 
a preacher of the gospel. If one is not able to support one 
within itself, let it or them confer with one or more neigh- 
boring churches, and let so many as are needed to support 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 147 

a man do it by regular contributions ; but by all means 
avoid associations that ignore and take the work out of the 
hands of the churches. 

In addition to the work mentioned, the Tenth Street 
Church encourages Brother Larimore to devote his time to 
the weak churches and destitute places in Nashville by 
supplementing what they may lack of giving him a support. 
This, with the individual sacrifices., is the work that has 
planted the churches all over the land. In Missouri, con- 
taining the largest number of churches and members of any 
State, out of fifteen hundred churches, over eleven hundred 
do not work through the societies, so the society publishes. 

There is a specious and misleading fallacy in the last 
paragraph. The devil always finds a specious reason when 
tempting Christ, whether in the fleshly or the spiritual 
body. Christ's work cannot be done through human inven- 
tions and devices. They may make a show of this work in 
some points ; but they so change and corrupt it in its vital 
point that it is not the work of God, but of man. God must 
do his own work. He does it through his own men and ap- 
pointments. For him to do it through human devices is 
to encourage men to set aside his institutions, laws, and 
appointments for those of man. He may overrule the hu- 
man so as to promote his honor ; but his honor comes only 
through the failure and destruction of the human, which 
he overrules to its destruction and to the honor of his king- 
dom and appointments. The success of the human is the 
overthrow of the divine; the success of the divine is the 
overthrow of the human. The two cannot grow together; 
we ' 'cannot serve two masters." D. L. 

CO-OPERATION, A PLAN OF, CHURCH. 

Brother Lipscomb : I have been an elder of the congregation at 
this place for twelve months. The church has been divided over the 
society question for two or three years. One of the elders is in sym- 
pathy with the society. He says he is willing for a society preacher 
or one that is not to preach, and thinks that the members ought to ac- 
cept a preacher from either side of the question. I was asked this 
morning by the elder if I would support a society preacher. I told 
him that I could not conscientiously do so. Please give me your views 
through the Gospel Advocate. I was told by a brother this morning 
that you said you had a scriptural plan; that you had been asked 
seven years ago to publish it, but had been silent. The plan spoken 
of is for spreading the gospel and raising money. 

When that brother or any other states that I failed to give 
a plan for scriptural cooperation, tell him he either will- 
fully or ignorantly misrepresents. If ignorantly, he is 
without excuse in it; for I presented a written plan to the 
first State convention the society folks held in Tennessee, 



148 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

at Chattanooga. The convention appointed a committee of 
seven to hear and report on it. Not one of them raised an 
objection to it, save that it was not the only way author- 
ized. But I freely state that I have no faith in any plans 
or efforts to formulate a plan except to fill men's hearts 
with the Spirit of God, infuse a love for saving souls into 
the hearts of Christians, and let each, under the providence 
of God, do the work in the way that his own talent leads 
him. Men cannot be hired to preach the gospel. If they 
will not preach it without hire, they will not with it. So 
the work of churches and Christians is to encourage and 
help all who show determination to preach the gospel. 

On the subject of inviting persons to preach, as a rule, 
those who favor societies may say they favor all preaching, 
but they say and do not. I never knew of them inviting 
a preacher to preach for them that they do not consider 
fully identified with them on this subject. We have only a 
few churches in Middle Tennessee committed to the socie- 
ties. Most of the preachers in this section are opposed to 
them. If one of these churches ever invited a preacher op- 
posed to the societies, I have never heard of it. Sometimes, 
when a church is divided in sentiment, they will agree to 
those they regard as noncommittal on the subject, but sel- 
dom agree to a man who is known to oppose the societies. 
Yet they stand in an attitude entirely different to the ques- 
tion from those opposed to them. None of them believe it 
wrong to preach the gospel without the societies, yet they 
oppose those who do it. Those who believe the societies sin- 
ful cannot encourage those building them up without par- 
taking of what they regard as sinful. "To him that esteem- 
eth anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Rom. 
14: 14.) Not now arguing whether the society is sinful or 
not, how can a man who believes it so encourage those who 
are urging it and dividing churches to build it up? No 
greater evil now exists among men than the disposition to 
compromise the truth of God to please men. No man can 
be true to God unless he is true to what he believes God re- 
quires. It is a sin, a terrible sin, for a man to divide a 
church of God ; but when standing firm for the truth of God 
divides a church, God divides it. He divides it because part 
of it, by departing from his order or adding to his appoint- 
ments, has ceased to be of his church. Those who stand 
by his order constitute his church, if there be but one. The 
faithful adherence to God's order makes a man a member 
of God's church. Conscious and willful departure from his 
order puts him out of his church, if a million are guilty. 
Be true to your convictions of duty to God, and he will bless 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 149 

you. Then all forbearance and kindness should be exer- 
cised in the discussion and settling of these questions ; but 
for a man to give up what he believes to be the truth of 
God or in any way to approve and encourage what he be- 
lieves to be not of God is to give up God. 

CORINTHIANS, FIFTH CHAPTER OF FIRST. 

Brother Sewell: My class at the Lord's-day worship requested me 
to write you and ask you to give some instruction on 1 Cor. 5, as we 
could not all come to the same conclusion as to its teaching. 

This chapter gives the case of a member of the church at 
Corinth that had his father's wife, a sin that Paul says was 
not in practice even among the Gentiles. He, therefore, 
tells them to withdraw from him, or, as he expresses it, to 
"turn him over to Satan," which evidently means with- 
drawal. No church can allow such wickedness to be car- 
ried on in it and hold the respect even of the heathen. He 
intimates that even heathen people themselves would not 
tolerate such a course and commands them emphatically, as 
an inspired apostle, to put that wicked man away from 
among them. At that time the church at Corinth had just 
come out from heathen idolatry, and they were not as wide 
awake against such things as they should have been, and 
needed a positive drilling on the subject, and Paul gave it 
with no uncertain sound. The object to be accomplished 
was not to be regarded as simply a punishment inflicted, 
but as an effort to save the one that had sinned. And such 
should be the design of all church discipline now. The 
apostle also gives them to understand that his instruction 
as to their action in such a case meant a member of the 
church, as they could not deal with outsiders. They were 
even forbidden to eat with a church member that would do 
such a thing. As to whether this eating meant the Lord's 
Supper or only a common meal is a question with many. 
Some apply it only to the Lord's Supper ; but most likely it 
was intended to include all social intercourse with such 
members as this offender was, and that would include not 
only the Lord's Supper, but common social meals. Faithful 
members of the church cannot afford to associate with such 
a vile member as the above, even to eat a social meal with 
him ; for to do this would be to encourage such a one in his 
wicked course. It shows that the church of God must be 
kept pure by all its members, showing also that the whole 
church would soon become corrupt if wicked members were 
to be treated as if they were all right. This chapter, there- 
fore, is a very fine lesson on practical Christianity, both as 
to the private lives and relationships of the members and 



150 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

as to the general purity of the whole church as the body of 
Christ in that community ; and if all Christians would care- 
fully study and practice the lessons of this chapter, the 
cause of Christianity would certainly advance rapidly and 
many more souls would be saved. 

CORNELIUS AND THE JEWS' RELIGION. 

In your article on "What Shall I Do to Be Saved?" in the Gospel 
Advocate you say of Cornelius: "He worshiped according to the Jews' 
religion." Are you not mistaken in this? I have always been of the 
opinion, for various reasons which I cannot give now, that he wor- 
shiped after the patriarchal religion, which God did not abrogate 
when he called Abraham, but which he left to the Gentiles, while he 
gave the Jews a new religion. 

I find no evidence of a worship perpetuated among the 
Gentiles after the Mosaic law was given. The whole drift 
of the Scriptures is that the Jews alone were accepted wor- 
shipers of God. And every one who worshiped the true 
and living God must enter into the family and worship as a 
Jew. There was no such worship as the patriarchal wor- 
ship, save as God spoke directly to the father and he guided 
his family. If God, all through the Jewish age, was speak- 
ing directly to the fathers of any families, the Jews en- 
joyed no advantage over them, and the Jews did not pos- 
sess the oracles of God. I think the idea that there was an 
acceptable worship of God through patriarchs down to the 
coming of Christ entirely without foundation. Of course 
for a time there were corrupted forms of the worship of 
God maintained among the nations, but even before God 
called Abraham his family had gone into idolatry. He 
called Abraham out and separated him from these influences 
that he might deliver him from idolatry. The others waxed 
worse and worse. Some Gentiles, from their contiguity 
and association with the Jews, retained more or less of the 
knowledge of the true God and kept up a form of worship 
of him derived from the Jewish Scriptures without entering 
into or becoming proselytes to the Jewish family. Corne- 
lius was one of these. God saw his earnestness and sincer- 
ity, and chose him on this account and of his prominence 
to in him settle the question of the admission of the Gen- 
tiles into the church of God. Cornelius was not the first 
Gentile brought into the church. Those scattered abroad 
at the persecution of Stephen went everywhere preaching. 
"Some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, 
when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, 
preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was 
with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 151 

the Lord." Of this work the apostles seemed to take no 
cognizance until after the admission of Cornelius. When 
this was done, they sent Barnabas to look after them. Thus 
it seems to me. D. L. 

COVENANT, WHEN DID THE OLD, END? 

Brother Sewell: Does the Bible teach that the covenant of works 
or ceremonial law ended at or soon after Pentecost? Is it not a fact 
that the Abrahamic covenant and the ceremonial law were valid A.D. 
58? If the law ended A.D. 33, then how will you harmonize that view 
with Acts 21, in which the apostles and elders instructed Paul to keep 
the law, pointing out to him that all believing Jews were keeping it? 
They also pointed to the fact that the Gentiles should not keep it. If 
the law covenant was binding to the Jew as late as A.D. 58, then how 
much of the teaching of the apostles prior to A.D. 58 shall be regarded 
as safe precedent to-day? If it was not binding then, why did the 
apostles and others insist on keeping it? 

Dates are not expressed in the New Testament, and 
hence we are not specifically told when things were done. 
But Paul makes it very clear that the old covenant was 
taken away at the death of Christ by saying that he "took 
it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 1: 14.) 
Then the word of the Lord shows clearly that the new cove- 
nant, the church, the kingdom of God, was established on 
the day of Pentecost. It is a fact, also, that the early 
Jewish Christians for a long while still regarded the law 
of Moses as in force and tried to keep the law in connection 
with the gospel. This fact accounts for the advice of the 
Christians you name, as they were still clinging to the law 
of Moses. Up to the death of Christ the kingdom of heaven 
was all the time spoken of as at hand, but not yet estab- 
lished. After the day of Pentecost it was all the time 
spoken of as present. The following passage sufficiently 
settles the fact that the church, the kingdom of God, was 
set up on the day of Pentecost : "And Jesus said unto them, 
Verily I say unto you, that ye which have followed me, in 
the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne 
of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging 
the twelve tribes of Israel." (Matt. 19: 28.) The word 
regeneration does not mean some mystical, inner-working, 
converting power ; it means a new creation, a renovation, a 
new order of things. In this passage it means the church, 
the kingdom of God on earth. When Christ ascended to 
heaven, he sat on the right hand of God, sat upon his kingly 
throne, where he now reigns, and where Paul says "he must 
reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet." (1 Cor. 
15: 25.) So on the day of Pentecost, Christ was sitting 
on his throne, and on that day the apostles were given their 



152 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

seats on twelve thrones, for on that very day they were 
miraculously endowed with the power of the Holy Spirit to 
give laws by which the Jews and Gentiles as well should be 
judged. It was on the day of Pentecost, therefore, that the 
church, the kingdom of God, was set up. And the very 
same law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that initiated 
three thousand souls into the kingdom that day is still the 
law by which all enter the church of God and become mem- 
bers of the kingdom, the spiritual body of Christ on earth. 
Christ was about thirty-three years old when he was cru- 
cified, and the day of Pentecost was about fifty days after 
his death. Hence it must have been somewhere in or near 
the year 33 when Jesus was crucified and when the day of 
Pentecost came, when the church of God was set up in its 
fullness. Hence the year 33 of the Christian era is about 
as near as we can locate the time of Christ's death and of 
the end of the law of Moses and the setting up of the king- 
dom of Christ. I see no necessity of any trouble over the 
year 58 in settling these questions. 

CUP, THE, AT THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: For the benefit of myself and oth- 
ers, please explain Luke 22: 17: "And he took the cup, and gave 
thanks, and said, Take this, and divide it among yourselves." Did 
the cup spoken of here form any part of the holy supper? Omitting 
verses 18 and 19, the writer goes on to state (verse 20) : "Likewise 
also the cup after supper." Then does not this teach that he took the 
cup before supper? 

Our judgment is, there was but one offering of the cup. 
The first is a statement of the facts concerning the institu- 
tion to be attended to ; the second is a reference to the actual 
attendance upon the ordinance. The first is a general state- 
ment of the institution, its design and purpose ; the second 
is a specific statement of the items as the institution was 
observed. D. L. 



CUSTOMS, PAUL OBSERVING JEWISH. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Acts 21: 20-24 we read: "And 
when they heard it, they glorified the Lord, and said unto him [Paul], 
Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which 
believe; and they are all zealous of the law: and they are informed 
of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles 
to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their chil- 
dren, neither to walk after the customs. What is it therefore? the 
multitude must needs come together : for they will hear that thou art 
come. Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men 
which have a vow on them; them take, and purify thyself with them, 
and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and 
all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concern- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 153 

ing thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and 
keepest the law." 

We do not know the exact point of difficulty of our 
brother. Paul observed the forms and national institu- 
tions of Judaism. We are not sure there was ever any ob- 
ligation on a Jew to denationalize himself in becoming a 
Christian. The controversy was: Shall others than the 
Jews become Jews in becoming Christians? The apostles 
decided they were under no obligation to observe the na- 
tional mark of circumcision. No objection was made to 
the Jews perpetuating circumcision among themselves, and 
with it all the institutions peculiar to the Jews as a nation. 
The Jewish Christians maintained all the observances of 
the Jewish nation not of a religious nature. 

The Jews were more sensitive in reference to family ob- 
servances than the religious service. Paul, in his free as- 
sociation with the Gentiles, excited the enmity of the unbe- 
lieving Jews. They started reports that his enemies in 
the church took up against him — that he had forsaken and 
betrayed the whole Jewish nation, rejected circumcision, 
was disposed to break down distinction between Jew and 
Gentile. To remove this prejudice, they requested him to 
take these Jews, pay the charges connected with their vows, 
purify himself according to the Jewish custom, and so show 
that he observed all the national or family institutions of 
the Jews. Paul did this, and so satisfied them that the ac- 
cusations were false. He conformed to Jewish customs 
and prejudices as far as possible without doing violence to 
his duties as a Christian. D. L. 

DANCING, IS IT WRONG? 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it wrong for members of the church of 
Christ to dance? 

Without entering into any argument of the case, the 
solid judgment of the world, both religious and irreligious, 
in both heathen and Christian lands, has been that the 
dance arouses the lascivious and lustful feelings and has a 
tendency to lead into wrong. That many can engage in it 
without apparent injury goes for nothing, so long as many 
of the excitable and weak are led astray. That this is true, 
none can doubt who will observe the facts. The chief of 
police in New York City, a number of years ago, investi- 
gated the causes that led the fallen women to their condi- 
tion. He decided a large majority — four-fifths, I think — 
were led there through the dance. No prudent Christian, 
even though he felt he could engage in it without danger to 
self, would be willing to countenance that which leads so 



154 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

many astray. The true Christian principle is: "If meat 
make my brother to offend, I will eat no meat while the 
world stands." The Christian should do nothing to lead 
others astray. 

DANCING, EVIL EFFECTS OF. 

Brother Seivell: What are the evil effects of church members' 
dancing? We have some members who participate and who say there 
is no harm in it. 

Dancing is worldly and fleshly in its whole tendency and 
in all its effects upon those who engage in it. There is 
nothing in it to elevate, ennoble, or purify the heart or life 
of Christians. No child of God was ever led to be more 
spiritual-minded, more devoted to Christ in any sense in 
the world. There is emphatically no sense in which a 
Christian can be brought nearer to God, to Christ, to holi- 
ness, or heaven, by it. Dancing is not in any sense con- 
nected with the will of God, nor does it in any sense belong 
to godliness. It never leads any one to love Christ more, 
to do any more service to God. It never gave to any one 
a cleaner, purer, or a more virtuous life. It never led any 
Christian to be a more devoted and faithful member of the 
church, nor has it ever been any help to any child of God in 
denying the flesh with its affections and lusts. It never 
adds anything to a Christian's joy when he thinks of death, 
of the judgment, or of eternity. So there is no permanent 
good in it to any child of God on earth. No devoted child 
of God believes that dancing is in harmony with the will 
of God or that it is any credit to any church of Christ on 
earth for its members to dance. We never hear any danc- 
ing member of the church advocate dancing as a Christian 
duty or any sort of a good work, or that it will help in any 
sense to take them to heaven. No, they never do anything 
of the kind. The very best they try to present in support 
of it is to say they do not think there is any harm in it; 
and even in saying that much for it they are trying to blind 
and deceive themselves. One young lady who was strongly 
contending that there was no harm in it said, when we 
asked her if she was willing to go from the dancing room 
to the judgment seat: "No, indeed; I would want to pray 
a long time after dancing befo/e I would want to go to the 
judgment seat." But why would people want much time 
to pray between their last dance and the judgment? Surely 
because in reality they themselves think it a sin that needs 
to be forgiven before they can pass through the pearly gates. 

It is an exceedingly poor argument for anything to say 
that there is no harm in it. Why not ask: What good is 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 155 

there in dancing? How will it help in the formation of a 
pure and holy Christian character? The truth of the mat- 
ter is that dancing is a work of the flesh, and not a fruit of 
the Spirit. Read in Gal. 5 the catalogue there given of the 
fruit of the Spirit, and try your hand at placing dancing 
in that list. Every one knows better than to attempt such 
a thing. All know it belongs to the works of the flesh as 
given also in that same chapter. That dark catalogue ends 
thus: "Envyings, drunkenness, revelings, and such like; of 
which I forewarn you, even as I did forewarn you, that they 
who practice such things shall not inherit the kingdom of 
God." There can be no doubt but that dancing is one spe- 
cies of reveling, is emphatically a work of the flesh; and 
the doom is emphatically fixed that such "shall not inherit 
the kingdom of God," and none can possibly change the de- 
cree of the Almighty. Certainly any course that brings 
such a decree from the Lord can only have a deleterious ef- 
fect upon any church that will allow such a practice to go on 
unrebuked among its members. And any church that 
would encourage such a course is helping to carry its mem- 
bers down the broad road to ruin instead of carrying them 
in the narrow way toward the heavenly home. To dance, 
therefore, or to encourage it, is to encourage the works of 
the flesh, which drag people downward spiritually instead 
of upward. No man or woman noted for piety ever dances 
or in any way encourages it. No child of God, therefore, 
can dance without a loss to his spiritual interests. If he 
dances through life, he will lose his soul. If he ceases to 
dance after a while and turns to a devoted life, it will then 
be a source of regret that he was ever so inconsiderate as 
to dance. The white robes of the righteous are formed of 
the righteousness of the saints. Can dancing be called 
"righteousness," and is it possible for it to furnish any 
part of that beautiful robe? By no means. It will blur 
and spot and darken the robe instead of making it clean 
and white. Nothing but the blood of the Lamb can wash 
these robes and make them white. Surely it will take 
much penitence and prayer to secure the washing of danc- 
ing out of the Christian's robe so as to make it clean and 
white; and yet it must be clean and white to be ready for 
the marriage supper of the Lamb. Why, then, will Chris- 
tians indulge a habit that can bring to them no possible 
good, but evil, and only evil? Why will Christian fathers 
or mothers or churches encourage anything that so thor- 
oughly endangers the eternal interests of the soul ? 



156 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

DANCING, THE, TO BE CONDEMNED. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Webster's Dictionary says that marching to 
music is dancing. Where I have been going to school we marched to 
the music morning and evening, single file, not in couples. Is that 
wrong? According to Webster, it is dancing. Our teacher required 
us to march. If you say it is wrong, I will not march any more. 
Some folks here say it is wrong, but you are more of a Bible scholar 
than we are. (2) Is it wrong to march at any time or on any occa- 
sion. (3) Are there any scriptures forbidding dancing? I am against 
it. I do not thin it right. 

(1) The word dance has been used in a bad sense in the 
world. Some dances are not sinful. David danced as an 
act of praise to God when he brought the ark up to Jeru- 
salem. Filled with joy and gladness, he danced as the pro- 
cession advanced. "And David danced before Jehovah with 
all his might." (2 Sam. 6: 14.) So a man may dance by 
himself or with other men without sin. In Judg. 21: 23 
we are told that the girls had a yearly dance all to them- 
selves, not a man with them. The children of Benjamin 
caught them wives on such an occasion. There would be 
no sin in that kind of a dance confined to one sex if such 
were had now. The dance of this age and country is a 
dance in which both sexes unite and hop around and handle 
each other in such way as to excite the sexual, lustful feel- 
ings, and they accustom each other to be handled in such 
way that it is liable to lead to lewdness. Committees ap- 
pointed by the rulers in one of our large cities are examin- 
ing into the influence of these evils now. They report that 
in one small section of the city they found fifteen thousand 
lewd women, the great mass of which were brought to that 
condition by the dance house. With these facts before us, 
it is worse than foolish to get an uncommon meaning of 
the term dance and try to justify the evil practice from 
this out-of-date definition. 

(2) Every passage of scripture that commands us to 
avoid temptation and the excitement and gratification of 
the lusts prohibits dancing, because it always does this. 

(3) To show the folly of this parleying, we ask another 
question. There was a class of religious people in Europe 
two or three hundred years ago that insisted that men and 
women should get such absolute control of their passions 
that unmarried men and women might sleep together in the 
same bed without sin. One who favored the practice might 
ask for a scripture forbidding it. Could he find it? Where 
we are told they could do that, the next verse tells them not 
to arouse their passions and lusts by the dance. It is the 
lust-exciting dance that is condemned. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 157 

DAY, THE, OF THE LORD. 

Brother Sewell: In 1 Cor. 5: 5; 2 Cor. 1: 14; 1 Thess. 5: 2; 2 Pet. 
3: 10, we have the words, "the day of the Lord." (1) Has this day 
yet come? If not, when will it come? (2) Does this mean a day of 
twenty-four hours or a longer time? (3) Will the righteous come 
into judgment? (John 5: 24-29.) (4) What is meant by the expres- 
sion, "the saints shall judge the world?" (1 Cor. 6:2; Rev. 2: 26, 27.) 

(1) "The day of the Lord," as used in the passage named, 
has not come yet. The passage named from 2 Pet. evi- 
dently has reference to the close of time, the judgment, 
and the new heavens and earth. The other passages per- 
fectly agree and harmonize with it. The first one men- 
tioned (1 Cor. 5:5) was in reference to a man to be disci- 
plined by the church that he might "be saved in the day of 
the Lord Jesus." No man has the promise of eternal life, 
except as he holds out faithful to the end of life. The 
man that does this, and he only, will be safe at the judg- 
ment. Hence, in this passage "the day of the Lord" means 
the day of judgment. And this day will come just when the 
Lord is ready to send it ; that is as near as we can tell about 
it. (2) We do not know how much time will be consumed 
in the judgment. The word day does not always mean 
twelve hours nor twenty-four hours, but sometimes many 
such periods. (3) The Savior shows plainly that they will 
in Matt. 25. Other passages show the same. (4) It pos- 
sibly means that the same principle that saves the right- 
eous in their obedience will condemn the world, the wicked, 
in their disobedience. The passage in Revelation may mean 
about the same thing. In Heb. 11 : 7 we are told that Noah 
condemned the world by his obedience to God in preparing 
the ark. In our obedience to God we show our approval 
of the judgments of God in saving the righteous and con- 
demning the disobedient. 

DAY, THE, IN HEB. 10: 25. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: What day does the apostle have 
reference to in Heb. 10: 25? 

There is quite a difference of opinion as to what day is 
pointed out in the expression. Some think it refers to the 
judgment; some, to the first day of the week in which they 
assembled — as the day approached for assembling, exhort 
more and more that they forsake not the assembling. We 
can give only an opinion. A day of fiery persecution was 
coming upon them, to which allusion had been made. Paul 
admonished them to forsake not the assembling of them- 
selves, but, when assembled, to exhort one another to fidel- 
ity and holiness, and to do this the more earnestly as this 
day of trial approached. 



158 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

DAY, WHY MEET EVERY FIRST? 

Will you please give us through your paper some of the many rea- 
sons why we should meet every first day of the week to break the 
loaf? 

The first reason is that God has required his people to 
meet on that day to remember his death. Paul says : "Not 
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the man- 
ner of some is." (Heb. 10: 25.) This assembling, with- 
out doubt, was the assembling of the saints on the first day 
of the weak to break bread. Those that refuse to thus 
meet and break bread violate this positive authority and 
command of God. Another is that in Acts 20 we find the 
disciples meeting on the first day of the week to break 
bread. These had certainly been taught by the apostles to 
do so, and the apostles were inspired by the Spirit of God 
to so teach. Hence, by the teaching of the Spirit of God 
the early Christians met on the first day of the week to 
break bread. And by the teaching of the same Spirit it is 
the duty of all Christians now to meet on that day to do the 
same thing now ; and, besides, it serves as a kind of spirit- 
ual food upon which the child of God is to grow and 
strengthen, and without which he is sure to grow weak and 
sickly spiritually and ultimately lose all spiritual life and 
interest in the cause of Christianity. 

DAYS, LENGTH OF CREATION. 

Brother Sewell: Please answer the following question and oblige 
several of the brethren here: What was the length of days of cre- 
ation as spoken of in Gen. 1? 

The days of creation were the same length of our twenty- 
four-hour days at the present time, so far as we know. The 
language of the Bible, in giving the account of creation, 
after telling what was done in each period, says : "And the 
evening and the morning were the first day." And the 
length of all the days is expressed in the same way; the 
evening and the morning were the second, third, fourth, 
fifth, and sixth days. The word evening expressed the dark 
part of the twenty-four hours, while the word morning 
expressed the daylight part of the day. The seventh day 
is not divided into the dark and light parts, but is just 
called the "seventh day," which evidently included the same 
time as the other days in which the work of creation was 
done. Then, when the Sabbath law was given to man, we 
have this language : "For in six days the Lord made heaven 
and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the 
seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 159 

and hallowed it." (Ex. 20: 11.) These passages show 
clearly that the Bible count of days at the creation was just 
the same as we count time now. Some people imagine that 
a day in creation meant a long, indefinite period of time. 
But this is only guesswork. Our only way to be right is to 
simply take what the Bible says about it and let that settle 
the matter. 

DAYS, THE "THREE," AND "THREE NIGHTS." 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Will you explain through the Gospel Ad- 
vocate the last clause of Matt. 12: 40: "So shall the Son of man be 
three days and three nights in the heart of the earth?" Does this 
correspond to Christ's having risen the third day? (2) You speak 
of your city as being leavened with seven preachers. What a pity 
that the leaven does not extend farther South! 

(1) Among the Jews, as in law among our people, a part 
of a day always counted for the day. Christ was in the 
grave a part of three distinct days, hence is said to have 
been in the grave three days and three nights. He is said 
by the same writers to have risen on the third day, show- 
ing they did not regard that there was any discrepancy 
between the two statements. The same style is used with 
reference to other periods. "After eight days" is used in 
Scripture clearly to mean the eighth day. This is true 
both of the Old and the New Testament. Language must 
be interpreted in the light of its use by the people using it. 
The Holy Spirit used the styles of speech common to the 
people, 

(2) It is not always a sign that the community will be 
leavened by the truth and the cause built up because a 
goodly number of preachers are in a community. Some- 
times they are a hindrance instead of a help ; but I do not 
believe this will be the case with any of our Nashville 
preachers. They all will keep free of personal envyings 
and jealousies and all work harmoniously in building up 
the cause of God, and, in doing this, will help each other, I 
am sure. It is rather singular how difficult it has been to 
build up and maintain the cause in Mississippi and other 
Southern States, as well as a number of Northern ones. 
Brother McCain has given one reason for this failure in 
Mississippi. No one should get hurt at him for telling a 
plain truth in this matter; it is just what ought to be told. 
But we are constrained to believe there is something back 
of his reason even that produces the hindrance he men- 
tions as well as others. One chief cause is, the churches 
there never learn to rely upon themselves. As a general 
rule, they have been planted by a preacher from a distance, 



160 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and they never learn that Christian worship acceptable to 
God is the meeting together of his disciples to worship him 
in his appointments. They depend wholly on the preacher. 
They must have a first-class one; they never develop from 
among themselves teaching or worshiping talent; so they 
are dependent upon preachers from a distance. A church 
of ten thousand members that cannot do its own worship, 
that develops no home talent, that makes worship consist 
in or depend upon hearing a preacher, will never be estab- 
lished on a firm basis. A church of half a dozen poor mem- 
bers, who are determined to meet together and worship 
God for themselves, and have faith to persist in it without 
an itching ear for entertainment or a longing eye for a 
fashionable crowd, is already firmly established for good. 
God never forgets to send such a band the teacher when 
he is needed. 

Again, God never permits a church to die that is worthy 
to live in a community in which there are souls worthy of 
salvation. God has something to do with churches, living and 
dying. Sometimes churches live that are not pleasing to 
God. They live to corrupt those not willing for God to lead 
them. A soul not willing for God to lead it is not worthy 
of salvation ; but a true church, faithful to God, never dies 
in a community so long as there is a single soul in that 
community worthy of the salvation of God. In some com- 
munities none are worthy of salvation; none are willing 
to give up all for Christ. It was so in Christ's day ; it is so 
yet. There never has existed a community in which all 
could be saved, because some would not obey Christ. It 
is not always the fault of the church that all are not saved, 
any more than it was the fault of Christ that all were not 
saved in his day. Many churches and church members 
think it is incumbent on them to save everybody in their 
community, and think it is some fault of theirs that all are 
not saved ; so they go to work to try to become popular and 
pleasing to the public, hoping to save others thereby. They 
only show their own unworthiness of salvation and make 
their destruction sure. 

The simple thing for the Christian and the church is to 
be true to God ; to obey him in private and public worship ; 
be faithful in maintaining his worship ; meekly, kindly, def- 
erentially, but immovably, steadfast; using our means, as 
well as our time and talent, in sowing to the Spirit by sus- 
taining the teachers of the religion of Christ ; in all the re- 
lations of life showing the Christian example by practicing 
the teaching of Christ and leaving all else in the hands of 
God. If in our communities others are not converted when 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 161 

we act thus, the fault is theirs, not ours. They are not 
worthy of salvation. But if we change and neglect the wor- 
ship of God or act untrue to our profession, fail to show the 
true spirit of Christ, we fail to save others and bring de- 
struction on ourselves. D. L. 

Brother Sewell: In your reply to William J. Morrison you seem 
to forget the fact that Christ was in the heart of the earth three 
nights as well as three days. (Matt. 12: 40.) You do not seem to 
understand the Bible on that subject. If your count is correct, please 
tell me what three nights, or a part of what three nights, Christ was 
in the heart of the earth. 

I am surprised at the above. I recognize the perfect 
right of any brother that sees me in error to criticize me on 
it. But it seems to me that brotherly love and brotherly 
kindness should have led him to show me plainly how to 
get out of the difficulty; but he has left me just where he 
found me. He gave me no sort of information. He men- 
tions the passage where Jesus says that "as Jonah was 
three days and three nights in the whale's belly, so shall 
the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart 
of the earth." I have been often hit and knocked about on 
the three days and three nights that Christ was to be in 
the grave, and especially as to the time of his betrayal, trial, 
condemnation, crucifixion, burial, and resurrection; and I 
have shown on more occasions than one how the Jews 
counted time, and that with them the expressions "after 
three days" and "the third day" are both applied to the 
same events, and, therefore, to the Jews meant the same. 
In 2 Chron. 10, Rehoboam said to the people when they 
were appealing to him: "Come again unto me after three 
days." Then in the same chapter it says of those same 
people: "So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam 
the third day, as the king bade, saying, Come to me again 
the third day." (See verses 5, 12.) Such was the indefi- 
nite way the Jews had of counting and applying time. And 
yet the king and the people acquiesced in "the third day" 
of verse 12 as filling the expression "after three days" of 
verse 5 as shown above. So now when one verse says that 
Christ should be "three days and three nights in the heart 
of the earth," and another verse says that "after three 
days he shall rise again," and nearly a dozen others say 
plainly that "he shall rise again the third day," all these 
expressions certainly refer to the time that elapsed between 
his death and his resurrection. The divine record also 
tells us that the day on which he rose was the first day of 
the week. Hence the first day of the week is positively 
shown to be the third of the three days. Then, counting 



162 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

back from that, Saturday would be the second of the three, 
and Friday would of necessity be the first of the three, and 
no man can go any further back than Friday without mak- 
ing a wreck of the whole record. Now, count as the Jews 
did, letting any part of the time occupied during a twenty- 
four hour day count for a day, and everything fits. A large 
part of Friday was included, all of Saturday, and nearly 
twelve hours of Sunday, so that a part of three successive 
twenty-four-hour days were included. As Friday did not 
begin till Thursday closed, which was at sundown by Jew- 
ish count, you cannot take in any part of Thursday without 
putting the resurrection on the fourth day, and that would 
knock out the divine record. Further, in order to sustain 
your criticism, we call upon you to explain fully and clearly 
how it would be possible for Christ to lie in the grave three 
full days and nights and yet rise from the dead the third 
day; for if he rose one minute before the three days and 
nights were out, that spoils your application of your pas- 
sage forever. If you prove that he did lie in the grave all 
of the three days and nights, then you make him palpably 
contradict his own statement, so often and so definitely ut- 
tered, that he would "rise again the third day." So give 
us your solution of the whole matter and make everything 
fit up so as to make no conflict. 

DEACONS, THE WORK OF. 

What authority have we for considering the deacon's work to be 
attending to the temporal affairs of the church? I remember that 
Brother Fanning, in the Religious Historian, took the position that 
the deacon's work was, I believe, even more extended and more spirit- 
ual than that of the elder. Such would seem to be the case from 
their respective characters as marked out by Paul. I have never seen 
this position controverted by any of our brethren, but it is ignored by 
them all the time. What is the deacon's work? 

Deacon means a servant, a helper. Its use is frequent 
in the Scriptures, and always means a servant, a minister, 
one that works for or in behalf of another. "Whosoever 
will be great among you, let him be your minister J' (Matt. 
20: 26.) "Then said the king to the servants:' (Matt. 
22: 13.) "Greatest among you shall be your servant:' 
(Matt. 23 : 11.) "Be last of all, and servant of all." (Mark 
9: 35.) "His mother said unto the servants:' (John 2: 
5.) "The servants which drew the water." (John 2:9.) 
Christ is said to be their minister. Deacon means simply 
a servant. The word minister is very frequently the trans- 
lation of the word deacon. Deacons are servants — those 
who serve. The seven appointed to attend to the Grecian 
widows at Jerusalem are usually regarded as deacons, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 163 

though they are not so called in the Bible. The work of the 
deacons is gathered from the work these seven were ap- 
pointed to do. Their work was temporary, and soon they 
were found preaching in the dispersion. If these be the 
typical deacons of the church, the work of looking after the 
poor of the church and of seeing that their wants are sup- 
plied is clearly their duty. Paul addressed all the saints 
in Christ Jesus at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons. 
To Timothy, Paul says: "Likewise must the deacons be 
grave, not double-tongued, not given to much wine, not 
greedy of filthy lucre ; holding the mystery of the faith in a 
pure conscience. And let these also first be proved ; then let 
them use the office of a deacon [literally, "let them serve"] , 
being found blameless. . . . For they that have used 
the office of a deacon well [served well] purchase to them- 
selves a good degree, and great boldness in the faith which 
is in Christ Jesus." The word translated use the office of 
a deacon is frequently used in the New Testament, but is 
always translated serve or minister to. These are the only 
allusions to the deacon in the New Testament. It means 
a servant; it indicates, from the letters to the Philippians 
and Timothy, a special class known as servants. The char- 
acter of service is drawn from the supposition that the seven 
were the class of servants referred to as deacons. This idea 
is somewhat strengthened by the example of the early 
churches as it comes to us through church history. Still, 
the ground is not as clearly defined as we would suppose 
from the certainty with which it is usually regarded. 

Brother Fanning regarded any work done under the di- 
rection of the Spirit as spiritual work. Feeding the poor 
with the contributions of the church is just as spiritual 
work as preaching the gospel. If they attend to all the 
temporal interests of the church according to the direction 
of the Spirit, they do an extended spiritual work. I have 
never been able to speak with the confidence in reference 
to the position and work of these servants as I would like. 

DEACON, OFFICE OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us the full 
import of the term let in this sentence: "Then let them use the office 
of a deacon, being found blameless?" Who now is to do the letting? 

. Let in this sentence has the sense of must. It frequently 
has this force. The connection is : "Let these also first be 
proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found 
blameless. . . . Let the deacons be the husbands of one 
wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." 
Let is here used as implying obligation or duty or neces- 



164 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

sity rather than permission. The meaning is: These also 
must first be proved; then they must, or should, use the 
office of a deacon, being found blameless. The deacons 
must be the husband of one wife. In chapter 2 : 11 he says : 
"Let the women learn in silence with all subjection." Here 
also it means obligation or duty. The word let is fre- 
quently used in this sense of implying obligation, necessity, 
or duty, instead of permission, in the New Testament. It 
means: Let them do it if they will be Christians. D. L. 

DEACONS, MUST THEY BE MARRIED? 

There is a good, faithful brother belonging to a church in this sec- 
tion. He is about forty-five or fifty years of age. It was proposed 
to appoint him a deacon of the church, but another brother objected 
on the ground that he had no wife. He is a bachelor. Is the object- 
ing brother right? 

We do not think that language intended to require they 
should be married and have children; but as that was the 
common state of man, directions were given as to what 
kind of wives and children they should have. If it was 
prohibitory, Paul was unfit for a deacon, and he recom- 
mended that those who could restrain their passions should 
refrain from marriage that they might devote themselves 
exclusively to the service of God. The deacon is a servant 
of God and the church. That construction would present 
the case that Paul (1 Cor. 7: 30-35) recommended them to 
pursue a course to fit them for service of God; yet the 
course that he recommended prohibited their doing the serv- 
ice in some most important functions and positions. 

D. L. 

DEAD, BAPTIZED FOR THE. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain (1) 1 Cor. 15: 29; (2) 1 Cor. 
14: 22-26. 

(1) Persons are baptized to prepare and fit them for the 
state of the dead. Why do you do this if there is no future 
for or to the dead ? The question is asked in an argument 
in behalf of the resurrection. It has been told that per- 
sons were sometimes baptized for and in place of the dead, 
and this is a reference to that practice ; but the supposition 
of such a state or condition grew out of this passage and 
was fixed up to meet it. Its standing here as a part of the 
argument in behalf of the resurrection of the dead fixes its 
meaning, it seems to me. 

(2) This is a part of the scripture defining the miracu- 
lous powers, or charisms, bestowed on the early churches 
before the revelation of God's will was completed. I use 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 165 

the term miraculous power, or charisms, to draw the dis- 
tinction between the Holy Spirit as a gift from God and 
Jesus Christ to the church as their representatives in the 
churches and the marvelous powers, or gifts, bestowed by 
the Spirit on the members of the churches. Look at your 
dictionary and see the meaning of charism. This verse 
tells that these gifted persons attended church with a psalm, 
a teaching, sl revelation, something in a new tongue, or an 
interpretation. He then tells how they shall conduct them- 
selves in delivering these messages. These are the gifts 
that were to be taken away when the will of God was com- 
pleted, as told in chapter 13. After that will is fully made 
known, the gifts that were marvelous and partial would be 
done away and give place to the will of God, which promotes 
faith, hope, love, the greatest of which is love. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us your views 
on 1 Cor. 15: 29, which reads thus: "Else what shall they do which 
are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they 
then baptized for the dead?" Who are "they?" I have never seen this 
question asked through your valuable paper. 

When Paul used the above language, he was arguing the 
resurrection from the dead ; and the language was intended 
by the apostle as a part of his argument on that subject, 
and we must so interpret the passage as to give it that bear- 
ing if we would understand it correctly. The passage is 
confessedly a difficult one, and is certainly elliptical to us, 
although it may have been very clear to the Corinthians. 
As Paul was arguing the subject of the resurrection of the 
dead, we think it could do no violence to the passage to sup- 
ply in our interpretation of the passage the word resurrec- 
tion just before the words the dead and after the preposi- 
tion for. The Greek preposition huper, rendered for in this 
passage, means on account of, and might be so rendered 
here. Then we would have it thus : "Else what shall they 
do who are baptized on account of the resurrection of the 
dead?" All who are buried with Christ in baptism de- 
clare by that act that they believe that he was buried and 
rose again; and in believing that he rose, we at the same 
time believe and by our action declare our faith in a res- 
urrection of all the dead. In our immersion, therefore, we 
declare by that action that we believe in the resurrection 
of all the dead, of Christ first and through him all others. 
If Christ did not rise from the dead, burial with him in 
baptism would be meaningless ; and if he rose not, then no 
others will rise, and the religion of Jesus is a failure at 
last. And this is what Paul meant to impress upon them — 
that in having been buried with Christ in baptism, as he 



166 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

told the Romans, they had by that act declared a resurrec- 
tion from the dead by being raised up from baptism, as 
Christ was raised up from the grave. He meant to im- 
press upon the Corinthians that their baptism was utterly 
meaningless if there be no resurrection of the dead. 

The word dead is plural number of the Greek, and we can 
find no authority for regarding it in the singular. If it 
were singular, then it might be regarded as referring to 
Christ only — that is, what shall they do who are baptized 
on account of Christ, who did not rise if there be no resur- 
rection? — and thus put the argument that way; but the 
word being plural makes it refer to the dead in general as 
well as Christ ; not only that he rose, but that all will rise. 
And with this idea there is meaning in the passage. The 
argument or illustration is a very forcible one. As the 
apostle was arguing the resurrection, the interpretation we 
have given cannot possibly do any violence to the connec- 
tion. But if we undertake to conclude, as some do, that 
Paul here teaches that living persons may be baptized for, 
or in the place of, dead ones, then we make him introduce 
a new subject entirely in that one sentence that has no con- 
nection with the subject he was on ; and not only that, but a 
subject that is nowhere else mentioned in all the Bible. 
And is it reasonable to suppose such a thing? Certainly 
not ; for there is not the least allusion to such a practice as 
that in all the oracles of God. We insist, therefore, that 
Paul used the passage in connection with his argument on 
the resurrection, and insist that it is very forcible. 

In the substitution of sprinkling and pouring for baptism 
the apostle's argument is utterly destroyed. But under- 
standing immersion, which represents a burial and resur- 
rection, and there is meaning in it. In accepting baptism, 
we accept the truth of all the Christian religion teaches. We 
accept the truth that Christ arose and that we also shall rise 
from the dead, and in being baptized we declare that much 
to the world. And why do that if we do not believe in a 
resurrection, as some of the Corinthians did not? He 
shows them their inconsistencies in having been baptized 
and then denying the resurrection. E. G. S. 

DEAD, THE QUICKENED. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please give a full exegesis of Eph. 
2:1: "And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and 
sins." Also, Phil. 2: 13: "For it is God which worketh in you both 
to will and to do of his good pleasure." Are these verses to be un- 
derstood as teaching the same as John 5: 25: "Verily, verily, I say 
unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear 
the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live?" Also 
please explain John 5: 21. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 167 

In Eph. 2 : 1, where it says, "You hath he quickened," 
the word quickened has reference to their conversion, or 
becoming Christians. In Acts 19 we are told exactly how 
this was done. Paul, an inspired apostle, went to Ephesus 
and preached two years and three months straight out, so 
that not only at Ephesus, but in all Asia, the people heard 
the word of God. The word quicken means to make alive. 
Those people were dead in trespasses and sins — that is, 
they were sinners ; but when the gospel was presented by 
Paul, they believed it, obeyed it, and by so doing were made 
alive by the gospel — were "born again ... by the 
word of God, which liveth and abideth forever." And this 
is all of it. 

When Paul wrote to the Philippians about God's work- 
ing in them to will and to do, he only meant that God 
worked in them through his word, through the motives 
placed before them in the gospel. God works by means 
and uses the gospel and its heavenly motives as a means of 
prompting them to act. These motives move some, and 
some they do not move. Hence, Paul said to the Thessalo- 
nians: "For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, 
because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard 
of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is 
in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in 
you that believe." (1 Thess. 2: 13.) The word of God 
works effectually in those that believe; and as God is the 
author of the word, when the word works effectually, it is 
God working through the word — working in them to will 
and to do the things that will lead them to the promises of 
God. And thus one passage explains the other and shows 
how God works in them. 

But the passage in John has reference to raising the 
dead, and we have a literal illustration of it in the raising 
of Lazarus. He was dead. Jesus spoke to him and called 
him by name, and Lazarus heard his voice and came to life 
again. He goes on in the same connection and says the 
time is coming when all in their graves shall hear his voice 
and shall come forth. So in this passage in John the word 
dead means literally dead, and Jesus literally raised the 
dead — caused them to live again — in more instances than 
one. E. G. S. 

DEAD, GOSPEL PREACHED TO THE. 

Brother Sewell; I would be glad to see an article from you on 1 
Pet. 4: 6. What dead do you understand the apostle to refer to? 
"For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that 
they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according 



168 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

to God in the spirit." (Revised Version.) Is this any better or any- 
more according to the original than it is in the King James Version? 
In the discussion with Elder Brown (in the tract, page 29), I use it 
as proof that the "dead in sin" are capable of hearing the gospel. 

So far as the two translations named are concerned, there 
is very little difference. Possibly the Revised Version 
conies a little nearer being precisely literal than the Com- 
mon Version, but I do not see that it helps much so far as 
understanding the meaning of the passage is concerned. 
The difficulty is to understand who the dead are that are 
spoken of. The Greek word nekros means dead, but does 
not at all indicate what dead are meant, nor is there any- 
thing in the connection that explains that. The word 
nearly always means those literally dead. One time it is 
used in connection with sin, as when Paul says to the Ephe- 
sians that they had been "dead in trespasses and sins." 
But there is nothing in the connection to indicate that it 
means that in the passage you name ; but one thing is very 
certain about it, and that is that if it does mean that in this 
passage, your claim that those dead in sins are capable of 
hearing the word of God and of obeying it and of coming 
into the church of God without the aid of any abstract op- 
eration of the Spirit to enable them to do it is correct. So 
your teaching on that subject is correct, whether the pas- 
sage you name means dead in that sense or those literally 
dead. 

The passage lends no favor to the idea that sinners are 
incapable of hearing and obeying the gospel, because, who- 
ever they may be, the preaching was done that they might 
be judged according to men in the flesh. Plainly it means 
they were to be judged according to their treatment of the 
gospel that was preached to them — that if they obeyed the 
preaching, they were safe; if not, they would be judged and 
condemned for their disobedience, as is plainly taught 
throughout the Christian dispensation. The gospel was 
sent to all. Those who would hear and obey were to be 
saved without a doubt, while all who refused to hear and 
obey were to be condemned. Beyond this teaching we af- 
firm nothing as to who the dead spoken of were. It may 
mean such as had heard and rejected or obeyed the gospel 
and had died before Peter wrote his letter; for from the 
day of Pentecost to the end of time those who obey the gos- 
pel will be saved, while those refusing to obey will be de- 
stroyed by it, which, is just the principle upon which all will 
be judged under the gospel dispensation at the final day 
of accounts. So if we knew precisely who the dead were 
and when they died, it would add nothing to our knowledge 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 169 

of the matter of our responsibility to hear and obey God 
and of our final destiny, which is to be settled upon that 
principle. At the judgment the books are to be opened 
and all are to be judged according to their works. So de- 
clares the word of God. 

DEAD, WHO TO "BURY THEIR DEAD?" 

Please explain Matt. 8: 22: "But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; 
and let the dead bury their dead." 

There are more ways for men to be dead than one. The 
word dead has a literal meaning and may have many figu- 
rative meanings. A man may be literally dead, as when 
mortal life is extinct, or one may be dead in trespasses and 
in sins, or dead to anything in which he is not engaged or 
feels no interest. A man may be alive in the work of Chris- 
tianity or he may be dead to that work. He who neither 
works in Christianity nor feels any interest in it is dead to 
the cause and at the same time dead in sins ; while, on the 
other hand, he who loves the cause of Christ and works in 
that cause is dead to sin, but alive in righteousness. The 
disciple who asked permission to bury his father who was 
literally dead was himself alive to the work of Christ, while 
there were evidently many others who were dead to the 
work in which Christ was engaged, but fully alive so far 
as burying the dead was concerned, and he knew that they 
could and would attend to that. But he had immediate use 
for all his disciples that were with him. We think, there- 
fore, the passage means : "Let those who are dead to an in- 
terest in our work, and at the same time dead in sins, bury 
their dead ; but you, who have interest and life in my work, 
must be engaged in it now ; we have no time to lose." 

It may be worthy of remark, too, that these disciples 
were still under the law of Moses, and that law declared 
that any one who touched a dead body was to be unclean for 
seven days and had to go through the process prescribed 
by the law during that seven days to cleanse himself from 
that uncleanness, and the Savior did not want to spare one 
of his disciples that long. This may have had something 
to do with it. The passage also teaches at the same time 
that the Savior does not allow us to place anything earthly 
before his work — the duties that he requires at our hands. 
He did not intend to teach that his followers are not to 
show all proper respect for their dead relatives, their bur- 
ial, or any other necessary office connected therewith; but 
in that particular case he had another work for that disciple 
to do immediately, and he, therefore, required him to go 



170 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

on in that work and leave the burying of his father to oth- 
ers who would not do his work. We should, therefore, learn 
from this that we are not allowed to let earthly consider- 
ations hinder us from the great work to which the Lord has 
called us. E. G. S. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain what is meant by, "Let the dead 
bury their dead," in Matt. 8 : 22. A Greek scholar here says that it 
means : "Let the dead in trespasses and sins bury their dead." Would 
not that exclude Christians from burying the dead, especially those 
who have died out of Christ? 

I do not see that Greek scholarship has anything to do 
with the interpretation of this passage. Greek enables a 
man to see it is properly translated. When properly trans- 
lated, an English scholar can understand it as well as a 
Greek scholar. This sentence is properly translated. It is 
spoken in connection with excuses for not following Christ, 
and is to be understood literally. Since a dead person can- 
not bury a dead one, it means : Better leave the dead unbur- 
ied than that one should not follow Christ. It only ap- 
plies to cases in which burying the dead would hinder the 
following of Christ. Devout men buried Stephen ; burying 
him did not hinder following Christ. It is a strong expres- 
sion, showing neither courtesies to friends or kindred, tell- 
ing them good-by, nor even burying the dead, should hin- 
der following Christ. (See Luke 9 : 58-62.) 

DEATH, DAY OF, BETTER THAN THE DAY OF BIRTH. 

Please explain Eccles. 7: 1. Why is the day of a man's death bet- 
ter than the day of his birth? Also please explain Eccles. 12: 7: 
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit 
shall return unto God who gave it." As these passages seem to have 
a general application to all men, Universalists annoy us with them. 
When does the spirit return to God — immediately after death or at 
the day of judgment? What of Hades? Is it proper for Christians 
to be anxious about the investigation of this subject — as to whether 
the spirit sleeps in the grave, goes to Hades or to heaven? 

We think if Christ or the Holy Spirit had laid any im- 
portance upon the condition of the dead from the grave to 
the judgment, one or both would have plainly revealed it 
to us. We have never seen a sentence that appeared to us 
to be written for the purpose of explaining this. So we 
never have troubled ourself enough to form an opinion on 
the subject. Nor do we think anybody's opinion is worth 
the ink and paper with which it is written. 

The spirit returns to God at judgment to be judged by 
him according to the deeds done in the body. 

The day of a man's death is better than the day of his 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 171 

birth, because his work is then done, perfected, accom- 
plished. If he has done well, it is a day of rejoicing and 
triumph to him. It bears the same relation to the day of 
his birth that the end of harvest does to the day of plant- 
ing, the completion of a work does to its beginning. 

DEATH, IS THERE BUT ONE IN ROM. 5: 17? 

Rom. 5: 17: "For if by one man's offense death reigned by one; 
much more they which received abundance of grace and of the gift 
of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ." Is there 
but one death referred to, and which one? 

One death brought both physical decay and spiritual 
ruin; or, rather, both spiritual ruin and physical decay are 
results from one cause. Life and death were used orig- 
inally in a sense different from their present use. Life 
meant freedom from corruption or suffering, both spiritual 
and material. Death was the opposite of life; subjection 
to corruption, to suffering, to decay. "In the day that 
thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" w T as literally ful- 
filled in the sense in which the word die was used. It is 
frequently used in the same sense in the Bible. Paul says : 
"I die daily." Our existence here is but a continued death, 
a continued suffering and decay. What we call "death" is 
but the end of that continued death. In this sense the sep- 
aration from God is the death. The effect of that death 
upon man's material being is suffering, disease, decay, end- 
ing in the return of dust to dust ; the effect of that death on 
the spiritual man is anguish, sorrow, fear, spiritual woe, 
ending in eternal sorrow unless redeemed from this des- 
tiny by Christ, the Savior. It is one death, but one bear- 
ing fruit in the material and spiritual world. 

DEATH, BETWEEN, AND THE RESURRECTION. 

Brother Lipscomb: Did Christ's spirit go to Joseph's new tomb 
with his body and remain there until the resurrection of his body? 
If so, will all spirits remain in the grave until the resurrection of 
their bodies? If not, why not? If so, will the spirit be conscious 
while in the grave? I have great respect for you and confidence in 
your Bible knowledge, and come seeking information. 

I have never found a sentence in the Scriptures intended 
to tell what is the condition of the spirit of man between 
death and the resurrection. If it is a matter not of suffi- 
cient importance in the word of God to cause him to reveal 
it to man, it is not of sufficient importance to man to jus- 
tify his studying the question. It is a question in which I 
have never felt a particle of interest. I "have never seen 
any good come of the discussion of the question. I have 



172 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

seen much evil come out of it, as comes out of the bringing 
of all untaught questions into discussion among the people 
of God. No greater evil afflicts the church to-day than this 
disposition to bring in things not taught by God. "Fool- 
ish and ignorant [untaught] questions refuse, knowing 
that they gender strifes." (2 Tim. 2: 23.) "Him that is 
weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputa- 
tions." (Rom. 14: 1.) There is nothing in these ques- 
tions to help a soul or to honor God. Let us seek to save 
the lost, not to drive them off with discussion of questions 
to no profit. 

DEATH, SIN UNTO. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: You will please explain through 
the Gospel Advocate 1 John 5: 16: "There is a sin unto death: I do 
not say that he shall pray for it." 

We suppose the "sin unto death" spoken of by John is 
the sin against the Holy Spirit spoken of by Christ. He 
says : "All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and 
blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme: but 
he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never 
forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation." 
(Mark 3: 28, 29.) This passage shows- that all sins, ex- 
cept the sin against the Holy Spirit, may be forgiven ; and 
as John speaks of "a sin unto death," a sin not to be par- 
doned or even prayed for, it must be the one Christ spoke of. 

E. G. S. 
DECEMBER, THE TWENTY-FIFTH OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I was not aware that any doubts 
were entertained about Christ's birth occurring on December 25. I 
saw recently a work, written in 1840, stating that it was more prob- 
able that he was born in October or November. The arguments were 
as follows: "It is a fact that the Jews sent out their flocks into the 
mountainous and desert regions during the summer months and took 
them up in the latter part of October or November, when the cold 
weather commenced. As the shepherds were out tending their flocks 
when he was born, it is clear that it occurred before December 25." 
By giving your opinion in the matter you will greatly oblige a reader 
of the Gospel Advocate. 

We were not aware that any person thought that Christ 
was born on December 25, except probably those who rested 
their faith on the authority of the Romish Church, without 
any investigation on their part. We think it can be very 
conclusively shown that he was not born then, but we have 
neither the documents for reference nor the time now to 
show the reasons for this. We made the investigation 
years ago, and fully satisfied our mind upon the subject. 
One of the popes of Rome, in his anxiety to multiply reli- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 173 

gious feasts and observances as a means of increasing the 
power and revenues of papacy, fixed December 25 as the 
day, and ordained imposing ceremonies in connection there- 
with. The Protestants, except the Episcopalians, rejected 
the day ; and for a long season it was regarded in New En- 
gland especially as indicating Romish tendencies. In Vir- 
ginia, where the Episcopal influences were more prevalent, 
the observance of the day became more general. The ob- 
servance of the day has grown more general, though not 
always in a religious or reverential manner. It is more a 
day of frolic and holiday sport than of religious observance. 
It comes at a season so near the end of the year, so near the 
time that endings and beginnings of the seasons would in- 
dicate as suited for holiday, that its observance is likely to 
be continued. But we think, beyond all question, it is not 
the day of the birth of Christ. It ought not to be observed 
as such. A week's rest and recreation at the close of the 
year and before the beginning of another is not objection- 
able, but in many ways desirable on social and economic 
grounds. It is always well to season these periods of rest 
with religious influences. D. L. 

DEGREES IN HEAVEN. 

Are there degrees in heaven? 

We do not know. Christ came to this world to break 
down middle walls of division and to make of the different 
families, tribes, and nations of earth one new man. We 
do not think that he has erected divisions or barriers be- 
tween the redeemed in the world to come. If there be dif- 
ference there, it will arise from different capacities for en- 
joyment. Some of the elite, the polished, the cultivated, 
think it a little hard to have to associate with the unculti- 
vated clodhoppers and unpolished working women of the 
country and the town in the world to come ; and so the idea 
has become rather prevalent that they will have a higher 
sphere nearer the heavenly throne than the horny-handed 
mechanics of the cities and the country boors who are 
Christians. But we have never found any Scripture au- 
thority for such an idea. It has its origin in the foolish 
ambition of some who have but little chance for a home 
in the better land. If there be differences in capacity for 
enjoyment there, the higher capacity will not be measured 
by intellectual culture, by polished manners or cultivated 
taste or high family here, but by self-sacrificing, self-deny- 
ing devotion to the honor of God and the good of man here. 

D. L. 



174 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

DEMONS, POSSESSED OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I desire not to worry your pa- 
tience, but seek information. In the Gospel Advocate of June 22 I 
asked two questions in reference to Luke 4: 41, one of which I cannot 
see that you answered — to wit: How were the demons known or dis- 
tinguished from those from whom they were cast out? Physicians 
say they can tell diseases by the symptoms. We have persons who 
have symptoms similar to those of olden time who were possessed of 
evil spirits. For instance, those mad, spiteful lunatics — are they 
possessed of devils as those were of olden time? In explaining my 
former questions, you said that evil spirits took possession of the 
minds and bodies of men. Can they or did they do so without the per- 
mission of the individual? Can they take possession of the little in- 
nocent child? If men are now possessed of devils, who can cast them 
out as the twelve and seventy did? 

We cannot undertake to tell that which our brother wishes 
to know, for the very reason that the Bible does not tell us. 
We do not know how the demons were distinguished from 
the persons out of whom they were cast, nor do we know 
whether demons have possession of any now as they did in 
the days of Christ; but if they do, none are able now to 
cast them out as Christ and the apostles did, for the days 
of miracles ended with the apostles. We have no idea that 
they take possession of a little innocent child ; and if they 
take possession of grown-up people, it must be their own 
fault, because they make themselves fit temples for them to 
dwell in by refusing the gospel, the plan of salvation 
through Jesus, our Lord, refusing to serve God according 
to his word ; for James says : "Resist the devil, and he will 
flee from you." We do not think that demons take posses- 
sion of those who live to the honor of God. But if men will- 
ingly refuse to serve God, demons may then possess them, 
for aught we know ; but if they serve God faithfully, he will 
defend them from demons. E. G. S. 

DENOMINATIONS, CHRISTIANS IN. 

Brother Sewell: I am a young preacher, and would like some help 
on the following questions should you deem them worthy of your 
time: 

1. Are there Christians in denominations? 

2. If so, will they be saved if they love God and obey him as far as 
they have the light taught them? Does not their joining a denomina- 
tion cut them loose from God's promised blessings, as denominational- 
ism causes divisions among God's people? 

3. Daniel prophesied that the God of heaven should set up a king- 
dom which should stand forever. I understand that this kingdom 
was set up on the day of Pentecost; but who composed that kingdom, 
or church, from the time of its departure from the truth until Camp- 
bell undertook to restore apostolic doctrine? I believe that after 
they hear the truth and refuse to accept it they will be condemned; 
but will God in his goodness and mercy save them in their ignorance? 
I find no promise for any one but those that are in Christ (his 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 175 

church). If their ignorance will save them, would not there be 
more saved by our staying out of destitute places? These may seem 
only trivial questions to you, but I am unable to solve them alone and 
am seeking for information, not for pastime. 

1. All are Christians that obey the gospel as it was 
preached by the Holy Spirit through the apostles ; but they 
will not remain Christians long if they unite with denomi- 
nations and practice according to man's wisdom instead of 
the plain word of the Lord. We find in the book of Reve- 
lation that some of the Lord's people were in Babylon ; but 
the Lord said to them: "Come out of her, my people, that 
ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of 
her plagues." (Rev. 18: 4.) So if any people obey the 
gospel among denominations, the voice of God is, "Come 
out from among them ;" and this they must do, if they ex- 
pect to be saved in heaven. People must not only obey the 
word of God in becoming Christians, but they must con- 
tinue to obey it in all things through life. The word of 
God knows no denominations and makes no promises to 
them as such. But the church of God, the body of Christ, 
is well known and approved in the New Testament; and 
in it many precious promises are made to all who are faith- 
ful servants of God in the body of Christ, of which body 
Christ is the head. 

2. There is no love for God that will do any man any 
good that does not lead him to do God's will. Jesus says : 
"If a man love me, he will keep my words." (John 14 : 23.) 
Also in verse 21 he says : "He that hath my commandments, 
and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me." Again, in 
verse 24 he says: "He that loveth me not keepeth not my 
sayings." These passages show plainly that God loves and 
recognizes only those who so love him so far as to keep his 
word. Denominations do not love God, according to the 
above passages, or they would cease to exist as such, for 
there is no authority in the word of God for any denomina- 
tions. Every one that obeys the gospel of Christ thereby 
enters the body of Christ, and then the only safety is to 
steer clear of all human wisdom and stick to the church of 
God as the word of God directs. All in Bible lands have 
the word of God, and can have its light if they will read 
and study it ; and if they do not, the responsibility will be 
theirs. 

3. During the dark ages of apostasy from the truth there 
were some people all along, according to history, that in 
the main were guided by the word of God, and not by the 
errors of popular denominationalism ; but it would be an 
extensive task to trace them out, as they generally had to 



176 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

keep hid away from popular religionists most of the time in 
order to exist at all. As to the matter of saving people be- 
cause they are ignorant of the word of God, there is noth- 
ing in the whole Bible that indicates such a thing. If that 
were true, the world would not have needed the gospel plan 
of salvation. Such a claim is a mere subterfuge and is not 
worthy a moment's consideration. Christ plainly laid down 
the whole principle of salvation and condemnation when he 
said : "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to the 
whole creation. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved; but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." 
(Mark 16: 15, 16.) This settles the whole matter and 
leaves no room for exceptions. 

DENOMINATONS, RECEIVING PERSONS FROM. 

Brother Lipscomb : When we receive persons from other churches 
on their baptism, do we not admit that they are Christians? If so, 
then there are Christians in other denominations also. Please give 
your views on the subject through the Gospel Advocate. 

Our brother speaks of "other denominations" as though 
he belonged to a denomination. This, I take it, is inadver- 
tently done. All denominations are sinful; every one is 
formed by adding to the things God ordained. God or- 
dained simple churches of Jesus Christ. To convert these 
into a denomination is to form an institution of man over 
and above the churches or institutions of God, binding them 
into one organized party. The general organizations al- 
ways control the churches composing them. When a 
church does not please the Baptist association or conven- 
tion, it refuses fellowship to that church. When a church 
in Indiana displeased the General Christian Missionary 
Society, the society refused to receive its contribution, and 
so declared nonfellowship with it. When the General So- 
ciety met in Nashville, a sister requested of President Loos 
that Azbill might report what the churches were doing 
through him, and it was refused. The request was repeated 
by J. J. Halz at one of the succeeding general conventions, 
and President Loos refused again, and said Azbill and his 
work were the greatest enemies the society had. So Azbill 
reported to me. That is, to work through God's appointed 
agencies is to show enmity to human agencies. President 
Loos is right in this. "No man can serve two masters." 
If he works after man's order, he opposes God's order; if 
he works after God's order, he is an enemy to man's or- 
der. All denominations are sinful. I had about as soon 
belong to one human organization in religion as another. 
The adoption of any one of them subverts the order of God. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 177 

We had as well be members of other denominations as of 
our denomination. When people were born and circum- 
cised among the ten tribes that seceded from the house of 
David and then wished to unite with the Jews faithful to 
the Lord, they were not rejected by the Jews for fear in 
receiving them they would own there were servants of God 
among the ten tribes. Whatever had been done among 
the ten tribes in accordance with God's will was accepted ; 
what was not according to his will was left off ; what God 
required that they had not done was added on. These 
things were types of divisions that would occur in the spir- 
itual kingdom. Whole bodies of the followers of Christ 
would fall away from fidelity to the practices required by 
God. I do not know any better way than God's way. Re- 
tain what has been done in accordance with the will of 
God; drop what they have practiced not required by him; 
add on what God requires that they have not done, so they 
will conform to the perfect will of God. 

There are Christians in many places that I think they 
ought not to be. They are in politics, in the various soci- 
eties of the age; they are in the missionary societies. I 
think a Christian should belong to but one society, that 
the church of the living God. He cannot serve two mas- 
ters. But if he has become a Christian and gone wrong, I 
will not ask him to repudiate what he has rightly done to 
make a Christian, but to turn from the wrong steps he has 
taken. A Methodist or Presbyterian may believe Jesus is 
the Christ, the Son of God. After believing, he has taken 
a wrong step in becoming a Methodist or Presbyterian. 
When teaching him what is right for him to do, I would not 
ask him to disbelieve or deny faith in Christ for fear I 
would own people believe in Christ among Methodists or 
Presbyterians, for they do. If a man believed in Christ 
and repented of his sins among Methodists, I would not ask 
him to turn from his repentance and go to sinning again 
because he had come to believe in Christ and repent among 
these people. If he had learned to believe, repent, and be 
baptized for the remission of sins or to put on Christ or for 
the answer of a good conscience toward God or to fulfill all 
righteousness among Methodists, Presbyterians, or Bap- 
tists (they can learn all these things among them), I would 
not ask him to undo or repudiate his faith in Jesus or his 
repentance toward God or his baptism or any part of the 
will of God he had learned and performed among these peo- 
ple ; but I would ask him to cling to all he held or practiced 
in obedience to the will of God, and to turn from things in 
these churches not according to the will of God, and to add 



178 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

whatever the word of God requires that he has not done; 
and I am just as sure that I would have the approval of God 
in this as I am that the Bible is the will of God, for the Bi- 
ble teaches that God dealt with men in this way. This rule 
would draw every Christian out of these sects as it drew 
Alexander Campbell, B. W. Stone, the Creaths, and others 
from these sects to the church of Christ. There is just a 
little danger that we get a little more righteous and strict 
than God. Then, people must act on their own faith, not 
mine or yours. If, after they are taught the will of God, 
they have a good conscience that in doing the things God 
commanded they obeyed God, none can gainsay it. I am 
glad for all these sects to preach just as much of the truth 
of God as they can; and, when they do so, we should ac- 
knowledge and encourage them in all the truth they teach 
and help them into more truth. I would like to own and 
fellowship every truth that every human being teaches, if 
I could do this without indorsing his errors. When he 
quits his errors and clings only to his truth, I can do this 
gladly by accepting him in his truth and helping him to 
more truth. I know this is God's way of dealing with the 
ignorant and the erring. It is a presumptuous, "holier- 
than-thou" spirit that says repudiate what truth you have 
and accept all truth I have, or you are rejected. None of 
us understand the full truth of God and will not compre- 
hend it all until we know as we are known in the glorified 
state. Let us help, not kick back, those struggling to gain 
truth. 

DENOMINATIONS, "OTHER." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I see in the Christian Standard of 
November 24, current volume, in answer to the query, "Is it right to 
speak of 'other denominations,' as is sometimes done? Is this pure 
speech?" Brother Errett says: "The Christians at Antioch were a 
denomination, distinct from all other religious denominations known 
among men; and we are a denomination." He gave Webster's defi- 
nition of the term: "A class or collection of individuals called by the 
same name." Is it true that the church of Christ is a denomination 
in the common acceptation of the term? 

The church of God is certainly not a denomination in the 
modern acceptation of that term ; and we think the expres- 
sion "other denominations," as contrasted with the church 
of God, is highly improper. First, because the expression 
is Ashdodic, is not pure speech, is not Bible language, and 
for that reason alone is liable to mislead and bewilder. 
When we mean the church of God, it is better to say so; 
and when we mean the denominations, better say it that 
way. And, secondly, because when we compare the church 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 179 

of God with "other denominations," it implies that the 
church of God is a denomination in the same sense that 
others are; and this is lowering the church of God to the 
level of denominations established upon human creeds and 
confessions of faith. The sooner we confine ourselves to 
pure speech, to Bible language, in designating the church of 
God, the body of Christ, the sooner will we restore the an- 
cient order of things. E. G. S. 

DEVIL, WAS THE, AN ANGEL? 

Brother Lipscomb : Please answer through the Gospel Advocate 
these questions: Was the devil ever an angel in heaven? If so, when? 

It is generally accepted that the devil was once an angel. 
It is inferential rather than positive. Peter says: "For if 
God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down 
to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be 
reserved unto judgment," etc. (2 Pet. 2: 4.) Jude (6) 
says : "The angels which kept not their first estate, but left 
their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains 
under darkness unto the judgment of the great day." 
John says : "And there was war in heaven : Michael and his 
angels fought against the dragon ; and the dragon fought 
and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place 
found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast 
out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which de- 
ceiveth the whole world : he was cast out into the earth, and 
his angels were cast out with him." (Rev. 12: 7-9.) 
These, as now occur to me, constitute the scriptures which 
suggest the idea. Other passages would indicate he was 
wicked when in heaven. John (8: 44) says: "Ye are of 
your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will 
do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not 
in the truth." (See 1 John 3:8.) Putting these scrip- 
tures together, it seems to me the devil was in heaven with 
a number of servants, or angels, who sinned, as it is now on 
earth, and the heaven underwent the same kind of purify- 
ing process that the earth is now undergoing. When sin 
is cast out of earth, it will be annexed to heaven as part of 
heaven. 

DEVIL, CONDEMNATION OF THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Paul, in speaking of what a 
bishop ought to be, says: "Not a novice, lest being lifted up with 
pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil." The condemna- 
tion of the devil was certainly eternal. Then if one fall into it, surely 
his fate must be fixed forever. We believe that erring ones can be 
"converted from the error of their ways." We believe also that there 
is but one thing unpardonable — the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. 



180 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

What is the difference between the condition of the one who is in 
"condemnation of the devil" and the one who "has neither forgive- 
ness in this world nor the world to come?" 

We are not sure that our brother is right when he con- 
cludes that a man being under condemnation of the devil 
is eternally so. The sinner before he believes is under con- 
demnation of the devil. He is not so eternally, unless he is 
eternally a sinner — that is, if he repents, he passes from 
under the condemnation of the devil into the justification 
of our Lord Jesus Christ. Whenever a man sins, he is by 
that act and for that act under the condemnation of the 
evil one. If he repents of it, he ceases from this condem- 
nation. We do not see why a man falling under the con- 
demnation of the devil after he becomes a Christian, or even 
a "bishop," may not repent and do his first work. A man 
may fall so far away that he will not repent ; then his con- 
demnation is eternal. But if a novice is unduly exalted 
and uplifted with pride of his position, acts foolishly, and 
falls under condemnation of the devil, we do not see why he 
may not learn wisdom and repent. When one is delivered 
to "Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit 
may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus," we take it that 
he is under condemnation of the devil. But he will be 
brought to repentance if the spirit is saved, and then he will 
not be under condemnation of the devil. All under con- 
demnation are under condemnation of the devil. They 
may pass from under that condemnation by turning to God. 

We have believed for many years that the sin against the 
Holy Ghost is the rejection of the testimony of the Holy 
Spirit since his advent into the world. He completed the 
will of God to man; he perfected the testimony. Those 
who reject this will never have more testimony. D. L. 

DISCIPLINE, CHURCH. 

Brother Lipscomb: I wish to ask you a few questions on church 
discipline — i. e., on the manner of dealing with an offending one. 
The common custom is for the elders to go or send some one to see 
the offender and try to get him to return. If this fails, they bring 
the matter before the church; and after all means calculated to re- 
store him have failed, as a last resort they withdraw fellowship from 
him. This seems to be right if we take the Savior's instructions in 
Matt. 18 as applicable to the church now. Others, taking Paul to the 
Corinthians as their guide, first put away that wicked one from 
among them, as he directs in 1 Cor. 5. Then they try to bring him 
to repentance, so that they may confirm their love to such a one, 
as directed in 2 Cor. 2. I will be glad to have your views on this 
subject. Which of the above modes of acting is most in accordance 
with the Bible? 

We cannot think that there is any difference between the 
Savior's teachings and Paul's. It is true, the one seems to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 181 

be more particularly a personal offense; the other, a gross 
sin against morality. Yet there is but little difference be- 
tween the character of the violations of God's law if we 
study the cases closely. Then the same end is certainly 
kept in view in both cases — the salvation from sin of the 
sinner. The Savior advises to remonstrate privately; and 
only when private remonstrance and exhortation fails to 
bring the erring one to repentance is the matter to be 
brought to the church, and then after the admonition of the 
church has been resisted he is to be withdrawn from. 

I do not think Paul teaches a different order, but intro- 
duces a case in the middle of the discipline. The case had 
evidently been before the congregation at Corinth. The 
church had not properly mourned over and condemned the 
case. The sinner persisted in glaring, gross sin. He was, 
doubtless, encouraged to this by the course of the church. 
Paul commanded that they promptly withdraw from him, 
that the spirit might be saved. The spirit is saved through 
repentance. If the man through strong temptation had 
been led into the sin, and so soon as remonstrated with, or 
under the severe condemnation of the church, had sorely 
mourned and deeply repented of his sin, certainly then 
Paul would not have given the command that he did. The 
object of the withdrawal is to bring to repentance; if the 
object is accomplished without the withdrawal, then there 
is no need of the withdrawal. This withdrawal is the se- 
vere and final measure of God's disciplinary course. If 
the individual is healed of his sin by the milder and earlier 
measure of the course, certainly it is wrong to administer 
the severe medicine after the patient is healed. 

Good brethren take the position that the withdrawal must 
be gone through with in cases of gross immorality for its 
effect on the world. This would be merely theatrical act- 
ing for effect. We do not believe God ever does this. Yet 
there is such a thing as withdrawing from a man, keeping 
no company with him, yet admonishing him as a brother. 
(See 2 Thess. 3: 6-15.) 

The churches within our knowledge have all been too 
quick to cut their members off and give them up. Be 
prompt to condemn the sin, slow to give up the sinner. 

D. L. 

DISCIPLINE, A CASE OF WRONG. 

Brother Lipscomb : I write this private letter to get your judg- 
ment in a certain matter of church discipline. The church at A 
withdraws fellowship from Brother B on a charge of adultery. B 
pleads "not guilty," and says his case was not placed before the 
church in any way, only that the elders took the case to themselves 



182 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

in a private manner against his consent and simply reported his ex- 
clusion to the church. B afterwards applied for membership at C, 
and said he was willing to have his case fully investigated, with all 
the proof from both sides. The church at C asked the church at A 
to grant B a reinvestigation, as he claimed innocence, and that he 
believed he could bring rebutting testimony to establish his innocence 
of the charge. The church at A refused to grant a new trial. B then 
requested the church at C to investigate his case and take all the 
proof, calling on the elders at A to furnish the proof upon which he 
was excluded. The church at C agreed to his proposition and fixed 
the day, requesting the elders from the churches at D and E to meet 
them in counsel in the investigation of the case. The day came, but 
no delegation came as such from the two churches applied to. The 
elders at A ignored the case. The church at C took no action in the 
case on said fixed day, more than an indefinite postponement to get 
further counsel. I advised the church at C, where I preach, as to the 
above-stated course. Now, have I done right in such advice? Has 
the church at C a right to investigate the case of B and act accord- 
ing to its own decision, admitting all the proof before the elders at 
A at its worth according to the judgment of the church at C? The 
man still avows his innocence of the charge, and it has been several 
years since the case first came up. B remains out of any congrega- 
tion of worship against his desire. Is there no remedy, or what is 
it, or must all our congregations forever submit to the decision of the 
church at A? 

The action of the church at A was wrong. It is the duty 
of the elders of a church to see that a thorough investi- 
gation of every case that comes up is had. It is not their 
duty alone to investigate, but to direct the investigation 
and see that it is just, full, and fair. We do not see that it 
is always necessary to investigate a matter before the boys 
and girls of a congregation. But discreet and prudent men 
of experience ought to investigate the case and put it in 
such form that every member of the church will be satis- 
fied of the justice of the decision. It is utterly impossible 
that men and women can act earnestly and heartily in a 
church when they believe it guilty of injustice and wrong 
to its members. An eldership that assumes such authority 
assumes to be the church and lords it over God's heritage. 
An eldership that refuses to satisfy by investigation a sin- 
gle member of the church proves its unfitness and incom- 
petency to rule a congregation of disciples of Christ. 
While every congregation ought to respect the action of 
every other one and act on the presumption that its acts are 
under direction of the word of God, still, if it has reason to 
believe that any act was not, especially an act that affects 
the rights of a disciple of Christ, that is brought before it, 
and is led on reasonable ground to think that wrong has 
been done to the least member of the body, as little as it 
could do would be to ask the congregation to review its ac- 
tion. A refusal of a request so simple and fair is a dis- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 183 

courtesy to the congregation requesting it and an exhibition 
of a self-sufficiency, if not bigotry, that is not favorable to 
justice. If a congregation is satisfied that another congre- 
gation violated the law of God, this is certainly no reason 
why A should do it also. Remember always that not the 
action of the congregation, but the violation of God's word, 
unfits the person for membership in the church of God. 
Remember, too, the question should be, not whether you 
are in favor of this individual's exclusion or retention, but, 
Has he violated the law of God? Is he willing to conform 
to that law, or does he persist in his course of violating di- 
vine law? We have never seen why the wrong of one con- 
gregation should bind others to the same wrong. D. L. 

DIVISIONS, HERESIES, ETC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In your remarks in answer to a 
"Disciple," page 97, No. 5, of this year, you say: "The Holy Spirit 
never intimated that a circumstance could arise that would justify 
division." Well, now, my dear brethren, it does seem to me that you 
may be mistaken, or I fail to understand the apostles in 1 Cor. 11: 19. 
Here the apostle says: "For there must be also heresies among you, 
that they which are approved may be made manifest among you." 
Are we to understand heresy to be division? If so, we are at a loss 
to know how to make your statement comport with the above quo- 
tation. 

The remark referred to had reference to the people of 
God as such — that there is no intimation by the Spirit of 
God that the people of God should be divided against each 
other; and this is true. Against division Christ prayed, 
and to this end Paul said: "Now I beseech you, brethren, 
by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the 
same thing, and that there be no divisions among you ; but 
that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and 
in the same judgment." This gives the positive testimony 
of the Holy Spirit that there must not be divisions among 
the Lord's people. But when Paul speaks of heresies, 
which means schisms or sects, he has reference to wicked, 
unruly members, and that such ought to be divided or sep- 
arated from the true members of the body of Christ. It 
is always a blessing to the cause of truth for insubordinate 
members that will not obey the truth to slough off and get 
out of the way, or that they be withdrawn from, that the 
purity of the church of God may be seen and appreciated 
by those around them. And this is what Paul had refer- 
ence to in the passage mentioned in the above query. He 
had no reference to those who have a desire to do the Lord's 
will being divided ; this he condemns. There is no author- 
ity for a congregation of Christians to divide. Wicked men 



184 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

should be separated if they cannot be reclaimed, but never 
array Christians against Christians. Purify the body, but 
do not divide it. E. G. S. 

DIVORCE AND MARRIAGE AGAIN. 

Brother Sewell: I desire to ask some questions concerning mar- 
riage. Suppose a man who is not a member of the church marries a 
woman who is a member of the church. They separate for the rea- 
son that they do not live peaceably together; they both get a divorce; 
the man afterwards becomes a Christian. Would he then have the 
right to marry a woman who is also a Christian? Acording to 
Brother Smith's argument, his first marriage was not according to 
Scripture; and if his first marriage was a violation of God's law, was 
he not living in adultery? Would his first wife have the right to 
marry again, as her first marriage was not lawful? 

In the case as presented above, the first marriage is a 
real, binding one. A woman that is a Christian would do 
wrong to marry a man who is not a Christian; but that 
wrong on her part would not prevent their marriage from 
being a real, actual one, and their disagreement could not 
vitiate or dissolve their relationship of husband and wife. 
Getting a divorce by human law cannot dissolve a marriage 
in the sight of God ; and there is but one cause that can, 
while both live. There may be reasons on account of which 
husband and wife might separate and cease to live together ; 
but this sort of separation does not break the marriage tie, 
and so long as they both live neither one can marry again 
without violating the New Testament. Whichever one mar- 
ries commits adultery, as also the one that marries the sep- 
arated one; and in case one of them does marry, and thus 
commits adultery against the other, this act releases the 
other. If it be the man that marries, as in the question, the 
fact of his becoming a Christian cannot possibly authorize 
him to marry some other woman, Christian or not Chris- 
tian. If he becomes a Christian, that is only a stronger 
reason why he should either remain single or be reconciled 
to his living wife again; then, both of them being Chris- 
tians, they ought by all means to be able to live together. 
But while the first wife remains single he has no sort of 
right to marry, because the fact that he was not a Chris- 
tian and she was does not and cannot vitiate the marriage 
tie ; therefore they were neither one of them living in adul- 
tery to live together as husband and wife. Hence his be- 
coming a Christian after they separate cuts no figure in the 
case, and has nothing to do with his right to marry again 
while his first wife remains single and chaste. The first 
wife did wrong in marrying a man outside of the church, as 
I understand the New Testament; but that wrong could in 
no wise dissolve the marriage or prevent it from being a 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 185 

veritable marriage. When a Christian marries one not a 
Christian and they set in to live together as husband and 
wife, there are but two causes on earth that can break that 
marriage; one is the death of one of the parties, and the 
other is adultery on the part of one or the other. The sort 
of marriage as supposed above would neither be a cause of 
separation nor of another marriage, nor would the parties 
be in adultery to live together. Separation after marriage 
on the part of a Christian with one not a Christian would 
in no wise undo the first wrong of marrying such a one. 
Either keep out of the first wrong in marrying such a one 
or seek forgiveness for the wrong in some other way. 
Many people are only too anxious to find an excuse to sep- 
arate; but the above offense never can break a marriage 
deliberately entered into. The only way to avoid the diffi- 
culty is not to enter into such a marriage. Young Chris- 
tians often fail to study the New Testament before mar- 
riage and go contrary to it ; but that sin does not break the 
marriage and they must stick to it or both live single till 
death separates them. If either one marries another party, 
it will simply be an entrance into a sin that will destroy the 
soul if persisted in. Paul plainly teaches that a believing 
husband or wife is not to put away an unbelieving one on 
that' account. 

DIVORCE AND SEPARATION. 

A brother and a sister married and remained together six years. 
They could not agree. He left her, sued for divorce and obtained it, 
and now has married another sister in the church. They are in good 
standing in the church, excepting this case. Please give me your 
views about it in the next Gospel Advocate. Can they be retained in 
the church by making acknowledgment? 

The whole subject of divorce was discussed not long since 
in the Gospel Advocate. The Scripture teaching was pre- 
sented. All we can or ought to do is to present the simple 
teaching of Scripture. We have no opinions or views on 
any subject that ought to weigh with any person. Some- 
times cases become complicated, and those who study the 
Scriptures more closely may assist in properly applying the 
law of God, just as a lawyer or a judge who makes the law 
his study may understand applying it to cases. But this 
case presents no complication. Any one who has mind 
enough to be responsible can apply the law. Jesus says: 
' 'Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, 
committeth adultery against her." (Mark 10: 11.) In 
Matthew he adds, ''save for the cause of fornication." No 
fornication is alleged. He is said to have left her. We 



186 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

cannot make the language plainer. The church that can- 
not act on Jesus' word is unworthy of him. If the man put 
away his wife for any cause, and the woman her husband, 
save for adultery, and married another, he is guilty of adul- 
tery. He and the present woman with which he cohabits 
(she is not his wife) are living in adultery. No acknowl- 
edgment that does not undo the wrong is scriptural. 

D. L. 
DOCTRINE, THE FORM OF. 

Brother Lipscomb: In Rom. 6: 17 we have these words: "Ye have 
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you." 
Do you understand "form of doctrine" to include anything but bap- 
tism? If so, what is it, and when and how obeyed? In 2 Thess. 1: 
8 we have : "Vengeance on them that . . . obey not the gospel 
of our Lord Jesus Christ." Is there included in the words "obey not 
the gospel" anything more than (1) faith, (2) repentance, (3) con- 
fession, and (4) baptism? In other words, do you understand that 
the gospel is obeyed in full when a believer is baptized? If not, what 
additional obedience is required to obey the gospel, and is there any 
promise of remission of sins without full obedience? 

No religious service can consist in or include baptism 
alone. Scriptural baptism cannot be alone, cannot exist 
by itself; scriptural baptism cannot exist without faith in 
Jesus Christ, without repentance toward God. Unless the 
heart is purified by faith in Christ Jesus, and unless a godly 
sorrow works a repentance unto life, there can be no scrip- 
tural baptism. "To obey from the heart" emphasizes the 
same truth. The heart means the inner, spiritual man, em- 
bracing the will, the intellect, the affections. The obe- 
dience from the heart requires that the mind, the will, the 
affections, should all enter into the service. The mind 
must be enlightened, the will should be guided and the af- 
fections enlisted before the "form of doctrine" can be 
obeyed. When baptism is spoken of, all these essentials to 
baptism are included. Baptism is not scriptural baptism, 
save as it is the expression and the embodiment of faith in 
Jesus Christ and the declaration of repentance toward God. 
Dr. Hackett says: "Submit to the rite in order to be for- 
given. . . . It is the sign of the repentance and faith 
which are the conditions of salvation." This is a correct 
statement of the relation of baptism to repentance and 
faith and to salvation. In the vocabulary of Paul, "ye are 
justified by faith" and "we are baptized into Christ Jesus, 
are baptized into his death," mean the same thing. He 
explains : "Ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ 
Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ have put on Christ." (Gal. 3: 26, 27.) Faith per- 
fects and declares itself in baptism. So we are justified 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 187 

by faith, by being led by faith to put on Christ, by being 
baptized into him. "Baptism for the remission of sins" 
means justification by faith that works through love. The 
doctrine, or teaching, was that Jesus died for our sins, was 
buried, and raised again for our justification. The form 
of the doctrine includes the dying to sin as well as the bur- 
ial and resurrection to life. We die to sin, and are quick- 
ened to life by faith ; we are buried, and rise in Christ Je- 
sus to walk in the newness of the life imparted through 
faith in Jesus Christ, just as the principle of life is im- 
parted by begettal, but it can enjoy no distinct and per- 
sonal life until it is delivered into the new state suited to the 
development of life. Obedience to the "form of doctrine" 
includes the death to sin, the quickening through faith, the 
burial and resurrection through baptism to a new life in 
Christ. 

"Gospel" is good news. "The gospel" is, by emphasis, 
the good news of salvation in Christ Jesus. To obey the 
gospel is to do the things required to enjoy the blessings 
promised in the gospel. Unless something was required 
that the blessings might be enjoyed, there could be no obe- 
dience to the gospel. In its wide and general sense the 
gospel embraces all the blessings, temporal and eternal, 
that come through the mission of Christ to earth. They 
all constitute a part of the good news to man. Used in this 
broad and general sense, obedience to the gospel would be 
obedience to all the laws and regulations that train and 
qualify man to enjoy the blessings that come through 
Christ either in this or in the world to come. "Gospel" is 
used in a more specific sense to apply to Christ and his mis- 
sion, to the great facts of his life that establish his claims 
to be the Christ — his death, burial, and resurrection from 
the dead — which especially proclaim him the Son of God. 
It applies to these because these procure and open all the 
blessings of heaven and earth to men. So to preach Christ 
is to preach all the blessings brought through Christ and 
enjoyed in him. In this specific sense it is most frequently 
used in the Scriptures ; but when thus used, it is used as 
leading to and including all the truths and blessings grow- 
ing out of the mission of Christ. Corresponding to this 
specific use of the term "gospel," the obedience of the gos- 
pel means obedience to those acts which commit men to 
Christ and bring them into him. Being in Christ commits 
him to walk in all the requirements of Christ and opens to 
him the promise of all blessings brought by Christ to man. 
In ordinary language of the Scriptures, obedience to the 
gospel means a belief in and acceptance of Christ in his ap- 



188 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

pointed way. It binds to an obedience to all the laws and 
regulations of the Christian religion that fit men for enjoy- 
ing the blessings of heaven. Then obedience to the gospel 
means doing the things that bring us into Christ and com- 
mit and obligate us to do the whole will of God. Faith in 
the Lord Jesus Christ, repentance from sin, and a burial 
out of self to arise in Christ Jesus put us in Christ and 
bind us to a life of service to him, and are the obedience of 
the gospel. 

What is the doctrine and its form found in Rom. 6? 

The doctrine in the passage referred to represents the 
gospel of Christ, the plan of salvation prepared by the 
death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The form 
of doctrine is something that is like the doctrine ; and as the 
doctrine is death, burial, and resurrection, so must the form 
be in some sense. The alien in. becoming a Christian dies 
to sin, both to its love and its practice. This is accom- 
plished through faith and repentance. Then, upon the con- 
fession of the name of Christ, he must be buried with him 
in baptism and raised up therefrom to walk in newness of 
life. This is a very forcible form of the doctrine, and it is 
very clear that any one who has not thus died to sin, been 
buried and raised up to walk in newness of life, has not 
obeyed the form of doctrine as the Romans had. E. G. S. 

DOCTRINE, THE PRINCIPLES OF THE, ETC. 

1. What are "the principles of the doctrine of Christ" that the apos- 
tle would have us leave, and where may we find them — under the old 
or new institution? (Heb. 6: 1, 2.) Please be plain, so that the class 
may understand what the apostle really meant. 

2. In the letter of Paul to the saints at Philippi (Phil. 1: 6) he 
says: "That he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it 
until the day of Jesus Christ." Some are of the view that it was God 
who began the work; others think the apostle referred to Timothy; 
some think it was the Savior ; and some think he referred to some one 
in the congregation. Will you please give your views as to who it 
was that began the good work among them referred to? 

1. We understand the "principles of the doctrine of 
Christ" to be the requirements of the gospel by obedience 
to which people become Christians. When people obey 
the gospel and become Christians, they have then sub- 
mitted to the first principles of the doctrine of Christ and 
have made a beginning in the great work of Christianity. 
But they must not stop at this, but go right on in the prac- 
tical work required in our daily lives, adding all the Chris- 
tian graces to their faith; must go on to perfection — that 
is, perfect the Christian character by attending to all things 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 189 

that God has required of Christians. These Hebrew Chris- 
tians to whom Paul wrote were still attached to the law of 
Moses, and were disposed to keep up its practices in their 
daily lives instead of going on with the practices of Chris- 
tianity. The ceremonial works of the law were all dead, 
were all taken out of the way, when Christ died ; and yet 
they were disposed to cling to these old ceremonies, these 
dead works, such as the doctrine of baptisms, the various 
washings of the Jews, the laying on of hands, such likely as 
the laying their hands upon their sacrifices when they were 
going to slay them, and of resurrection of the dead, refer- 
ring to the fruitless controversies between the Pharisees 
and Sadducees on that subject. The question of the res- 
urrection to all that believed on Christ was fully settled by 
his resurrection from the dead, and Paul wanted them to 
leave all those controversies in which they had been en- 
gaged as Jews under the law. We are informed in the last 
part of Heb. 5 that they had failed to advance in their 
knowledge and practice of Christianity; that at the time 
they ought to be teachers they had need that one should 
teach them again the first principles of the oracles of God. 
Paul's requirement, therefore, is not that they should for- 
get the first principles, but that they should advance on, 
learning and doing the practical requirements of the church 
of God, and not stop when they had become Christians and 
spend their time discussing and working over the dead 
principles of the law, and thus laying again the foundation 
of repentance or reformation of life from these dead works. 
They had turned away from those things when they obeyed 
the gospel, and he taught them to carry on their begun work 
in Christianity and let the law alone. 

2. The one spoken of in Philippians who had begun a 
good work among them, and who would perform it to the 
day of Christ, we doubt not, is God, who was the author of 
all that had been or would be done for them, no matter 
through what agencies or instrumentalities it had been ac- 
complished. E. G. S. 

DOOR OF THE SHEEP. 

Does the expression, "door of the sheep," in John 10: 7, mean the 
same thing as "door into the sheepfold," in John 10: 1? 

We have no doubt whatever but that in both these verses 
the door spoken of means the same thing. Many of the 
things the Savior said were prophetic in their character, as 
was the case in this chapter. He even foretells the calling 
of the Gentiles in this chapter, and says: "There shall be 
one fold, and one shepherd." (Verse 16.) The sheepfold 



190 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

means the church of God, and the word sheep in verse 7 is 
a figurative expression, which is here used to signify the 
church, which is composed of Christians, which are here 
by figure called sheep. And no man can enter into this fold 
except by Christ, who is the door. E. G. S. 

DRAWING ALL MEN TO HIM, CHRIST. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give us an explanation 
through the Gospel Advocate of John 12: 32. When and how will 
he draw all men unto him? 

We do not think it means literally that he will draw all men 
(every one) unto him. It is an expression like this: 'Then 
went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region 
round about Jordan, and were baptized of him in Jordan." 
'That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that 
cometh into the world." "I will pour out of my Spirit 
upon all flesh." It means that all — that is, a great por- 
tion — of those living in Judea and Jerusalem and in the 
region round about Jordan who would accept of him came 
and were baptized by him. 

Jesus came into the world to enlighten the whole world, 
and all who would open their eyes to the light might be 
benefited thereby. His Spirit was poured out upon those of 
all nations and families who received Christ. And this 
means that by the resurrection from the dead and the ascen- 
sion on high he would provide means that ought to draw 
all men after him, and that would draw all who would open 
their eyes and hearts to the light and warmth of the gos- 
pel. These styles of speech are common in the Bible and 
among men. They are easily understood by those who care- 
fully attend to habits of speech. D. L. 

EATING FLESH, BREAKING BREAD, ETC.? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please answer the following que- 
ries: 

1. "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal 
life." (John 6: 54.) What does Jesus mean by this language? 

2. "And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine and 
fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2: 42.) 

3. "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and 
breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness 
and singleness of heart." (Acts 2: 46.) 

What is meant by the "apostles' doctrine?" Can it be the fellow- 
ship, breaking of bread, and prayer, seeing they are sometimes spoken 
in connection with the doctrine and separated by the conjunction and? 
Does the "breaking of bread" in each of these verses mean the same 
thing, or does either allude to the Lord's Supper? "And upon the 
first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break 
bread, Paul preached unto them." (Acts 20: 7.) How do we know, 
or where is our proof, that this language has reference to the Lord's 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 191 

Supper? Do we infer it from the phrase, "to break bread?" If so, 
could we not infer it to be a daily practice from the same language in 
Acts 2: 46? 

1. The first passage, regarding eating the flesh and 
drinking the blood of the Son of God, is a figurative ex- 
pression and has reference to all the requirements of the 
gospel ; for it is only by doing the requirements that eternal 
life is obtained. No one thing alone will take men to 
heaven. That it includes the Lord's Supper, we have no 
doubt; but that it embraces more, we are equally certain. 
A certain character is requisite to eat the Lord's Supper. 
This character is attained by living a godly life, by doing 
the commandments of God in the new institution. Who- 
soever, therefore, continues to eat bread and wine, his life 
in other respects being devoted to God, will certainly ob- 
tain eternal life ; but a man whose life is not consecrated to 
the service of God might eat the bread and drink the wine 
every Lord's day through life and it would not bring eter- 
nal life to him. By eating we take into the system that 
which sustains natural life ; and as bread is one of the lead- 
ing items of food, the whole of our living is often spoken of 
as bread, both in the Bible and out of it. The Savior in 
the immediate connection of this passage represents him- 
self as the bread which came down from heaven, which if 
a man eats he shall live forever. But the eating of this 
bread includes all that Jesus would have us do to gain eter- 
nal life, the Lord's Supper and all things else. He that 
doeth the will of the Father shall enter into the kingdom of 
heaven. 

2. The breaking of bread spoken of where they are said 
to have continued in the apostles' doctrine has reference to 
the Lord's Supper. They broke bread in this instance by 
the teaching of the apostles. The word doctrine means 
teaching. The apostles were commanded first to make dis- 
ciples and to teach them to observe all things Christ had 
commanded them. On the occasion referred to the apos- 
tles had just made three thousand disciples by preaching 
the gospel and inducing them to obey it. They then began 
immediately to teach them all the things they were to ob- 
serve. Among these things were fellowship, breaking of 
bread, and prayers. All these things were done according 
to the doctrine — the teaching of the apostles. This break- 
ing of bread, therefore, is something the apostles taught to 
be done. It never was necessary for the apostles to teach 
the disciples to eat their daily bread; they attend to that 
without any teaching; their own appetites will lead them 
to that. But taking the Lord's Supper is something the 



192 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

apostles taught by the Spirit of God to be done by the disci- 
ples. From other passages we learn that it was to be done 
on the first day of the week. Putting these different pas- 
sages together, we learn that the apostles taught the first 
Christians to meet on the first day of the week to break 
bread — to eat the Lord's Supper. This is plainly the mean- 
ing of the passage, and the disciples at Jerusalem continued 
steadfastly in the work. 

3. As to the breaking of bread from house to house, the 
indications are that this means the partaking of ordinary 
food. The passage says: "Continuing daily with one ac- 
cord in the temple." This continuing in the temple was 
done daily, every day ; and as the breaking of bread in this 
instance is immediately connected with something done 
daily, and as the Lord's Supper is done on the first day of 
the week, we conclude that this breaking of bread from 
house to house means partaking their ordinary food. The 
disciples then had all things common, and it was but nat- 
ural that they should eat first at one house and then another, 
as circumstances might require. The expression break 
bread may refer to partaking ordinary meals or it may re- 
fer to the Lord's Supper. The connection must always de- 
termine which is meant. When they broke bread by the 
teaching of the apostles, that was the Lord's Supper ; when 
the disciples came together on the first day of the week to 
break bread, that was the Lord's Supper ; but when they 
broke bread from house to house, connected with something 
done daily, the indications are that this meant ordinary 
meals. The teaching of the word of God regarding the 
Lord's Supper, we think, is very plain, not something to be 
inferred from uncertainties. E. G. S. 

EATING, WHAT MEANT BY IN 1 COR. 5: 11? 

Brother Seivell: I would like for you to explain 1 Cor. 5: 5, 8, 11. 
Does the eating mean the Lord's Supper? 

Verse 5 is where the church at Corinth was required to 
withdraw from a man that had taken his father's wife. 
The church was paying no attention to the case, and was 
thereby encouraging a great sin. Paul commands them in 
the name of the Lord Jesus "to deliver such a one unto 
Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may 
be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." This means that 
the church was to withdraw fellowship from that man, thus 
turn him over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. 
This shows that the discipline of the church is intended for 
the good of the erring member — that the design of church 
discipline is to save the erring one from his sins. Disci- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 193 

pline, therefore, is not a mere matter of punishment, but 
an infliction enacted upon him to show that God will not 
recognize sin, and that men that persist in sin in this life 
will be lost in eternity. To withdraw from a member is 
the last resort of the church in its efforts to save a mem- 
ber. If that fails to turn such members from sin, they will 
surely be lost. But in this case the infliction had the de- 
sired effect. When the man was withdrawn from, turned 
over to Satan, he waked up and repented of his sin, and in 
the second letter the apostle admonished them to restore 
him, lest he be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow. 
Hence, all churches should realize that all discipline must 
be administered with the one pure design of reforming and 
saving a member from his evil ways. It is a grand work 
to thus save a soul. 

In verses 7 and 8 allusion is made to the Jewish passover. 
During that feast, which lasted seven days, they were not 
to have any leaven about their houses. So in allusion to 
that custom he says in verse 7 : "Purge out the old leaven, 
that ye may be a new lump." 'Tut away that evil member 
from among you" is the idea. Then he also says: "For our 
passover also hath been sacrificed, even Christ." So the 
church has a paschal lamb all the time, and its members 
need to be pure all the time. The great feast of Christian- 
ity lasts all the time, and the church ought to be pure all the 
time. The word "feast" in verse 8 is likely used figura- 
tively to indicate that the church of God is a lasting feast 
that ought always to be pure and clean. If not this, then 
it may mean the Lord's Supper ; but more likely it refers to 
what the church should be all the time. The eating spoken 
of in verse 11 we do not understand to be the Lord's Sup- 
per, but rather a common meal. It indicates that Chris- 
tians shall not associate with one called a brother, who is 
guilty of the things named in this verse, in any way that 
will seem to recognize him as a Christian. To go and eat a 
friendly meal with a disorderly member would be to recog- 
nize him as all right, when he is in reality all wrong; and 
such a course would encourage him in his wrong course, 
when he should be rebuked. If we in any way associate 
with a member guilty of the things mentioned in that chap- 
ter so as to encourage him in wrongdoing, we to that ex- 
tent become parties to the wrong; and all should scrupu- 
lously avoid that. On the other hand, if we make this eat- 
ing mean the Lord's Supper, it would make the apostle in- 
dicate that we could eat the Lord's Supper with a man 
guilty of these things in case he is not a brother ; for in the 
preceding verse, in regard to associations, he makes ex- 



194 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ception of a man guilty of the wicked things named, pro- 
vided he is not a brother, for he says we would have to go 
out of the world if we avoided associations with such. In 
our business associations with men we are sometimes com- 
pelled to be with, and in a measure associate with, men of 
the world, and eat with them, when guilty of such things. 
This would not be wrong when business requires it ; but it 
would be wrong, of course, to eat the Lord's Supper with 
such. Therefore the eating mentioned is certainly, as we 
think, an ordinary social meal, and not the Lord's Supper. 

ELDERS. 

1. How and by whom should elders and deacons be appointed? 

2. How long, as a rule, should a church continue to meet before 
such an appointment is made? 

3. Does the term elder always carry the idea of advanced age in 
years or advanced in Scripture knowledge? 

4. Are there two classes or more of elders? It would appear so 
from 1 Tim. 5: 17. 

The Holy Spirit has described the qualifications of eld- 
ers in the first letter to Timothy and in that to Titus. None 
are perfect in their character. So none will have in per- 
fection these qualifications laid down — that is, all will pos- 
sess them in a human way. In describing such as elders, 
the Spirit appoints all who possess these qualities to do the 
work of elders. They will be found doing the work of eld- 
ers to some extent of themselves, else the qualities would 
not all be manifest. The congregation will see these quali- 
ties thus manifested. The multitude of the disciples, when 
a proper work was neglected by the church, were required 
(Acts 6:3) to "look ye out among you seven men" with 
the required qualifications. We suppose in any case where 
a work was neglected the multitude or body of disciples 
would select those among them possessing in a humanly 
practical degree the prescribed qualifications to do the 
work. The only work, so far as the Scriptures show, done 
by the church was to choose those described by the Holy 
Spirit. In the case of the seven hands were laid on them 
by the apostles. Whether this was to be done by others 
than inspired men has always been a question a little diffi- 
cult for me to decide. Hands were laid upon persons oc- 
casionally during the ministry of the apostles. In all cases 
except two, this one and Barnabas and Saul (Acts 13), it 
is specifically stated it was done to impart the Holy Spirit 
or that the Holy Spirit was imparted in doing it. This is 
not stated in these two cases. Yet the parties in both cases 
on whom hands were laid did manifest a power to work 
miracles, of which no account is given previous to the im- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 195 

position of hands. This truth, together with the consider- 
ation that all the other cases were intended to impart spir- 
itual gifts, raises the doubt in my mind if this was not the 
object in these cases also, inasmuch as almost every one 
called to do special duty before the New Testament was 
given was endowed with a spiritual gift to guide him in 
that work. If so, laying on of hands was confined to the 
age and persons possessed of spiritual gifts. 

It is very certain, at any rate, that men did discharge 
all the duties pertaining to the work of the church of God 
without having hands imposed on them. With this cer- 
tainty and the doubts as to the matter of imposition of 
hands, I have never been willing to have laid or to lay on 
hands. "Whatsoever is not of faith is sin." 

I do not think there was any rule or custom regulating 
how long a church should exist before elders should be ap- 
pointed. In the Jerusalem church, it seems, the neglect 
of a proper work was the occasion of their being set apart. 
A daily ministration to the widows and the poor was going 
on before these persons were set apart to attend to the 
work. This, we take it, was done under the offering of the 
disciples, excited by the love of the gospel and teachings 
of the apostles. In that ministration the widows of the 
Greek-speaking people were neglected. They were stran- 
gers, foreigners — spoke a foreign language. They were, 
doubtless, isolated from the others ; and although they were 
all Jews or proselytes, there was a prejudice against them, 
and they were neglected in this daily distribution. Then 
the apostles called the whole multitude of the disciples to- 
gether, told them of the neglect that had come to their 
knowledge, told them they could not give time to attend to 
it, and asked them to select seven men, "full of the Holy 
Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this busi- 
ness." "Full of the Holy Ghost" did not necessarily mean 
miraculously endowed, but fully under the influence of the 
teaching of the divine Spirit. This work that they were 
to be set over was the seeing these Grecian widows were 
not neglected, not the whole distribution that took place 
to the Hebrew widows. This was already attended to. 
The Hebrews, as distinct from the Grecians, being at home 
with their wealth, doubtless gave the principal part of the 
means distributed. Each one of those selected was Greek, 
as the names show. Now, the apostles did not take the 
means from these Hebrews and give to foreigners to dis- 
tribute among the widows and poor of the Hebrews; but 
they gave to these Greeks means to distribute among their 



196 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

poor widows, not leaving either class dependent upon for- 
eigners for their support. 

The point in all this is, the appointment was made only 
when the necessities of the case demanded it, and was made 
only to meet the existing need. So a neglected duty in a 
church would seem to indicate the time and purpose for 
which men are appointed to duties. This accords with Tit. 
1:5: "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should- 
est set in order the things that are wanting [neglected], 
and ordain [set in proper place] elders in every city." 
It seems Paul had preached there, according to the accepted 
chronology, in 63. Titus, I presume, was with him. He 
was familiar with the proper development and work of a 
church. Paul left him that he might wait to see their 
working, guide them into anything they might neglect, and 
to properly place the elders in the work to which each was 
fitted. The letter was written in 65. All the references 
to the elders and deacons indicate that they were to be men 
of age and experience — not necessarily old men, but men of 
established character ; men not novices, to have their heads 
turned with the idea of authority; men in whom the pas- 
sion and fervor of youth had subsided into sobriety, self- 
control, gravity, earnestness, and firmness; men of expe- 
rience and success in guiding their families, well grounded 
and well established in the truth. While no special age is 
given, they must have sufficient age to have established 
their characters in these several different relations to have 
shown aptitude in training families. I do not understand 
that a failure to have wife and children disqualified for the 
work ; but as most men have wives and children, they were 
to be such as had guided them well. 

We do not understand there were two orders of elders, 
but all elders have not the same talent. One may do one 
kind of work ; another, a different one. D. L. 

ELDERS, THEIR QUALIFICATIONS. 

Can a member of a congregation act as an elder except he pos- 
sesses all of the qualifications that Paul speaks of to Timothy? It 
appears to my mind that if a man should assume the office of elder 
without the proper qualifications, as set forth by the apostle in 1 Tim. 
3, he would be a self-constituted elder, and that his actions as such 
would be void. While I am of this opinion, there are many good 
brethren who differ from me and say that if we have not the proper 
material we must do the best we can and appoint to the work the best 
material that we have, whether they possess all of the qualifications 
or not. (1) The first qualification, it seems to me, is that a man must 
desire the office; (2) he must be blameless; (3) the husband of one 
wife; (4) vigilant; (5) sober; (6) of good behavior; (7) given to 
hospitality; (8) apt to teach; (9) not given to wine; (10) no striker; 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 197 

(11) not greedy of filthy lucre; (12) patient; (13) not a brawler; 
(14) not covetous; (15) one that ruleth his own house well; (16) 
grave; (17) not a novice; (18) moreover, he must have a good report 
of them which are without. 

Now, the apostle says that a bishop must possess these prerequi- 
sites. The question is: Can we place a man in the office, under any 
circumstances, who does not possess all of these qualifications? 
Please answer at length, as our congregation has dispensed with the 
eldership in consequence of not having men who possess all of the 
requirements. 

Do you mean that your congregation has dispensed with 
the work that elders should do? That nobody instructs 
the congregation or looks after the weak members? That 
you have no rule or discipline in the church? Do you 
mean that nobody leads in the worship? Nobody asks an- 
other to give thanks at the table or to lead in prayer ? No- 
body urges other members to meet to worship God, or to 
live honestly, uprightly, deal justly and fairly in the world? 
If you have given up these things, you have given up being 
Christians. 

A people cannot live Christians without doing all the 
work for one another and the community that God requires. 
They cannot do this without doing the work of elders and 
deacons in a community. You cannot live as Christians in 
a community without looking after the spiritual interests 
of the church and the public, without helping the poor and 
the needy, without teaching the ignorant and reproving 
the wrongdoers. When this is done, the work of elders is 
done; and it is much more important that the work of the 
elders than that the office of elders should be looked 
after. We often so pervert the religion of Christ that we 
esteem the office of more importance than the work. This 
is the world's order of things. It is only in one sense that 
the word office is applicable to the work in the church. It 
is not used in the church as it is in the government of the 
world. In this it means that when a man is inducted into 
office he is authorized to do certain things that it would be 
a crime for him to do if he were not in this office. Now, in 
the Scriptures it has no such meaning. The man's becom- 
ing an elder authorizes him to perform no act that he was 
not authorized to do before. It only makes it his business 
especially to look after the work now. He is to be chosen 
because he has shown his fitness for the office by doing the 
work beforehand. This shows it is not an office in the 
sense of an office of a civil government. But it is a duty 
imposed, growing out of a fitness developed for the work 
needed to be done. Any one who does this work of an elder 
is, in fact, an elder, whether he is appointed to it or not. 
The appointment gives him confidence and assurance in the 



198 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

work and makes him feel it especially his duty to do the 
work. 

Sometimes men are elected that have no fitness for the 
work, and others do it who have a natural fitness for it, but 
are not elected. A church in this condition has two sets of 
officers — a man-made set and a God-made set. The man- 
made ones are always a curse and a hindrance to the 
church. Better not select any if you will not select the 
God-made ones. These will do something of the work with- 
out appointment from men ; and when the work is done, the 
office is filled. 

But our brother says they have none fitted for the work. 
If so, there are no Christians there. A number cannot live 
the Christian life and not develop the characters needed to 
do Christian work. It is frequently said nobody fills this 
bill, when it is not true. You occasionally find a wicked 
man who says there is no Christian; and it is just about as 
hard to find a Christian, according to the faultfinder's 
standard, as it is to find one fitted for an elder. When 
the Holy Spirit requires qualifications, he specifies them 
as they develop themselves and exist among men, not as 
they exist among angels. The man who expects perfection 
among men is an impractical visionary. God does not ex- 
pect it. When he says they must be blameless, he means 
they are blameless as weak human beings. Abraham was 
a model of God's men. We form visionary ideas of Abra- 
ham's excellence; but when we come to solid facts, he was 
a weak, erring human. Twice under fear of his life he 
lied. He occasionally went without God's direction. He 
and his family suffered for it. I have no doubt we have 
thousands of Christian men and women who are the equals 
of Abraham and Sarah in fidelity and trustworthiness be- 
fore God and man. Peter was not faultless. He prevari- 
cated. I have no doubt our very exacting brethren, had 
they been in the days of Peter, would have said : "He is not 
fit to open the doors of the kingdom ; he denied the Savior ; 
he is not fit to teach or be a leading apostle." When the 
Jews came to Antioch, Peter dissembled and refused to eat 
with the Gentiles, although God had taught him by a mir- 
acle that he must receive and treat them as brethren. Yet 
God accepted him as the leading apostle. God held him 
blameless as a man, with human weakness and infirmities, 
when as an angel he would have been blameworthy. It is 
not blameworthy for a human being to err sometimes. It 
is for him to persist in the wrong. I have no doubt we 
have thousands of men, probably some in that very church, 
who are or may be the equals of Peter in firmness and fidel- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 199 

ity to truth. Inspiration gave knowledge, but not moral 
strength. When we dispense with the elders, we dispense 
with the work of God; and many Christians are in moral 
character the equals of Peter or Paul or John or James or 
Abraham or Isaac or Jacob. This faultfinding and depre- 
ciation of everybody else usually arises from undue exal- 
tation of self. It is not a healthy state. 

The old hypocritical sinner who stands off and carps at 
everybody in the church as wicked means to say he is very 
righteous and very perfect. He is usually a self-deceived 
hypocrite. The same spirit in the church belongs to the 
self-righteous. It is not healthy to be overmuch righteous 
nor to demand it of others. 

Acknowledge your own and your fellow men's humanity, 
your liability to err ; get clear of the foolish idea that men 
with faults and human weaknesses are unfitted for the 
service of God. He adapted his service to and for weak 
men liable to err. Be willing to confess your faults when 
you do err. I have noticed it in men, I have noticed it in 
papers. When one starts out to be over sweet-tempered, 
to keep out all humanity, it becomes one-sided, unfair, and 
the bitterest and most intolerant of men and papers. They 
do not show goodness in an honest, open, human, brave 
way. A paper that starts out to have no controversies, to 
be overly peaceable, is as sure to be filled with unjust in- 
sinuations and innuendoes as that to-morrow's sun will rise. 
You cannot crush the humanity out of men. Do not look 
for perfection in human beings nor dispense with the work 
of God while pretending to be Christians. When you do 
the work, you fill all the offices of his servants. 

ELDERS, THEIR APPOINTMENT. 

Brother Sew ell : I beg your pardon. I did not think it was wrong 
to ask you how you appointed elders in the churches; but when you 
say it does not matter how you do things, I beg leave to differ with 
you there. I think it does. Knowing you had been a Bible student 
all your life, and a teacher of it as long as almost any man I could 
think of, I did not expect to get anything but a Bible answer; but 
when you say what was done away and what was not when the reve- 
lation was completed, and that before that time the apostles were 
made in one day into the grandest preachers the world ever saw, and 
that Adam was made a full-grown man by miraculous power, I do 
not know what to think. I had thought without the seed there was 
not anything made that was made; that Adam was not made a grown 
man any more than Jesus was; that there never was an oak before 
there was an acorn; that man must have seed in him before he can 
become a newborn babe, or a Christian; and that an elder must have 
the qualifications Paul says he must have, or you cannot make an 
elder of him by appointment. However, we are agreed on that point. 
You admit that in some cases it might be best to go by Paul's direc- 
tions. If in some, why not in all? You say: "I have found that 



200 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

when a new congregation begins to meet and worship, there are some 
better fitted than others to take the lead in the work and worship of 
the congregation." Then why not appoint them and keep out the kind 
of men you speak of? If we have the right kind of elders, they will 
not let them push themselves forward. It is my belief that these are 
the kind of men of whom Paul said that their "mouths must be 
stopped," and he knew that was the only way to do it. Now, I want 
to ask you one more question, and if you will answer this, I never will 
ask or write anything more on this subject. The question is this: 
Where does the Bible say anything should ever be done away that 
was ever commanded to be done or not to be done in the churches? 

The trouble with Brother Holt in this whole matter 
plainly is that appointment to a work in the New Testa- 
ment involves a divinely prescribed ceremony or formula; 
and this whole idea of a formula of appointment has arisen 
from the idea of office and official authority in the church. 
Our brother is certainly under the influence of these no- 
tions to some extent, or he would not be so earnestly con- 
tending for a specific form of appointment. His question 
above shows that he thinks the appointment of the seven 
and others was by a specific form commanded of God, given 
in the New Testament, and that it must not be dropped out 
of use. If this be true, Brother Holt is right ; but the trou- 
ble is, he assumes the thing to be proved. That is just the 
thing I have been calling in question all the time, and the 
very thing which neither he nor any other brother has 
proved. The assumption in the matter is that fasting, 
prayer, and the laying on of hands, as mentioned in the 
New Testament, constitute the formula of appointment or 
ordination. If we grant the assumption, then the conclu- 
sion very easily follows that these things must be done in 
order to an appointment; but the trouble is that no one 
has yet made the proof. The word appoint is the word 
especially to be examined, because the word ordained, as 
connected with workers in the church, has been entirely 
left out of the Revised Version of the New Testament. 
The word appoint, as found in the New Testament, is a 
translation of at least ten different Greek words, no two 
of which have precisely the same meaning; while in the 
Old Testament the word appoint is from about twenty dif- 
ferent Hebrew words, all with a little different shades of 
meaning, but all of which were thought in some sense to 
involve the meaning of the word appoint. It may certainly 
be seen from these facts that the word appoint cannot mean 
a specific formula or ceremony. 

I will here give a few examples of the use of the word, 
both in the Old Testament and the New Testament. Sol- 
omon said to Hiram, in regard to hewing cedar trees for 
the temple: "And unto thee will I give hire for thy servants 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 201 

according to all that thou shalt appoint." (1. Kings 5: 6.) 
Instead of the word appoint in this passage the Revised 
Version has the word say. In 1 Kings 11 : 18 it is said of 
Pharaoh : ' 'Which gave him a house, and appointed him 
victuals, and gave him land." In Dan. 1 : 5 we have the 
expression : "And the king appointed them a daily provi- 
sion of the king's meat, and of the wine which he drank." 
These may suffice from the Old Testament to show T that 
the word appoint involves no specific formula, but simply 
what certain men said or directed to be done. In the New 
Testament we have: "After these things the Lord ap- 
pointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two be- 
fore his face into every city and place, whither he himself 
would come." (Luke 10: 1.) When the apostles were 
about to appoint another apostle in the place of Judas, 
"they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the 
hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast 
chosen." The word shoiv is from the same Greek word 
that appoint is from in Luke 10: 1. The Greek word is 
anadeiknumi, and means "to show anything by raising it 
aloft, as a torch; to display, manifest, show plainly or 
openly; to mark out, constitute, appoint by some outward 
sign; and in this case the choice was shown by lot. When 
the Savior sent out the seventy, he showed or indicated to 
them by word whom he wanted to go before him — likely 
called them by name and told them to go — and that is all 
the word indicates. It involves no sort of fixed ceremony, 
but a simple designation as to who should go, and they 
went. Again : "Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness 
in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto 
Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that 
he had seen." (Acts 7: 44.) God appointed the taberna- 
cle by telling Moses to make it, how to make it, and how 
they should use it ; but it was by no fixed formula that God 
appointed the tabernacle, but simply by speaking and tell- 
ing Moses what to do regarding it. The Greek word here 
for appoint is diatasso, and is defined: "To arrange, make 
a precise arrangement, to prescribe, to direct, to charge, 
to command, to ordain." This word occurs sixteen times 
in the Greek Testament, but it is rendered appoint only 
four times. It is rendered command seven times; ordain 
three times, in the sense of direct or command; and once 
set in order; and there is not a single instance of the use 
of this word that admits of a fixed ceremony. One of the 
occurrences of this word is : "And we went before to ship, 
and sailed unto Assos, there intending to take in Paul : for 
so had he appointed, minding himself to go afoot." (Acts 



202 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

20: 13.) When Paul appointed that they should take him 
in at a certain place, it only means he directed or told them 
what to do. In Acts 28 : 23 we have this : "And when they 
had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his 
lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom 
of God." This is where they appointed — that is, named, 
specified — a day for Paul to preach at Rome. This, of 
course, required nothing more than for them to name or 
designate a day for him. In Acts 6 the word rendered 
appoint means "to place, set, constitute, appoint; to con- 
duct ; to make, render, or cause to be." So the word means 
set, place, appoint to do this work — simply that they as- 
signed the seven men to do the work of serving tables. 
There arose a necessity for that work to be done, and these 
men were selected as required and directed to do that work. 
The prayer and laying on of hands are not involved in the 
word appoint, and were, therefore, for a different purpose. 
Prayer and fasting are individual acts of devotion to God, 
and to reduce them to a fixed formula or ceremony is to 
pervert them and take all the life and meaning out of them. 
Laying on of hands was always by men miraculously en- 
dowed and for miraculous ends, and never an ordinance 
of the church to be continued after the age of miracles. 
The word appoint, therefore, means to command, to direct, 
assign, or set, or place a man over, or to do a certain work, 
as in the case of the seven; but the form of so placing or 
directing men to do certain work is not laid down, just as 
the matter of going to the place of assembling on the first 
day of the week. We are required to go, but not told how 
we must go ; hence we may walk, go on horseback, in a 
buggy, on the cars, on a wheel, or any way we may choose ; 
but if Brother Holt were to undertake to force all to walk, 
or go on horseback, or in a cart, he would find trouble. 
So in regard to the matter of appointment. The apostles 
appointed the seven, and Titus was directed to appoint eld- 
ers in every city; but no formula of appointment is laid 
down. To direct, request, assign, place, or set one to do 
the work needed fills the bill. Just as well may you require 
that every one shall walk to the place of meeting on the 
first day of the week as to require a fixed or specific for- 
mula of appointment of workers in the church; and since 
God has not specified how we shall go to meeting, it would 
be preposterous and presumptuous to require all to go one 
particular way. It would be exalting human requirements 
into the place of divine commands. 

Washing the hands is a good and harmless way to keep 
clean, and about the only successful way to get rid of dirt 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 203 

and filth, and it has always been right, therefore, to wash 
the hands; but when the Pharisees began to require the 
Jews to wash their hands at certain specified times and oc- 
casions as a religious service, then they made void the com- 
mands of God by their traditions. I think brethren do pre- 
cisely this very thing when they require or practice any 
specified formula of appointment in the church. When 
men fast and pray and lay on hands as the formula of ap- 
pointment, they act upon the same principle they would 
if they were to lay down the law that all the members 
should walk to the place of meeting on Lord's day. Hence, 
where the Lord has not laid down the manner of doing a 
thing, we have no right to lay down any specified form. 
It is wrong, a matter of rebellion against God, to do so. I 
would about as soon enter into a demand that all the mem- 
bers of the church should go to meeting one fixed way as 
to require that the workers in the church should be ap- 
pointed by fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. 

Now, as no fixed form of appointment has been com- 
manded or laid down in the New Testament, there is no 
such thing as laying it aside; therefore the principles of 
the above question do not apply in this matter at all. This 
is the reason why it is not a matter of importance as to how 
I do these things. It is true that I have been studying the 
Bible a long time — about half a century; but in all that 
time I have not been able to find any formula laid down for 
appointing men to do work in the church of God, and no 
one else has been able to show it to me. Any way that a 
congregation may give an elder to understand they want 
him to act as overseer for them is an appointment suffi- 
cient. It is the duty of every child of God to read the 
Scriptures regularly, learn all he can about the work of 
the church, and do all that he can do, anyhow, and thus 
grow up into the work ; and if a man grows until he can 
fill the bill as an overseer, and then fails to go on in the 
work, the congregation should certainly urge upon him to 
persevere in doing his duty. This would be appointment 
enough. 

As to prayer and fasting, these may be voluntarily done 
at any time and by any Christian who may in a very hum- 
ble and earnest way implore God's favor. Hands cannot 
now be laid on by divine authority, as we understand the 
New Testament. Work, service, earnest devotion to God, 
is what we need, and no sort of appointing or ordaining 
service can take its place. 



204 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ELDERS, MUST THEY AND DEACONS BE MARRIED? 

Brother Sewell: Please answer the following question: For a man 
to hold the office of elder and deacon in the church of Christ, should 
not he be a married man and the head of a family? Does not the 
Scriptures so teach? 

The third chapter of Paul's first letter to Timothy plainly 
says of both elders and deacons that they must be husbands 
of one wife. There are differences of opinion as to whether 
the apostle meant they must really be married or simply 
meant to teach that they must not have more than one wife. 
It was customary in those days for men to have more than 
one wife at the same time, and some think this passage was 
intended to break that up. But we cannot explain away 
the fact regarding both elders and deacons that they must 
be the husbands of one wife. Why not conclude, then, that 
the passage was intended to accomplish both ends at the 
same time — that they should each have a wife, but only 
one? I am sure it is safe to so understand and to so apply 
the passage to both elders and deacons. But in the Greek, 
regarding elders, bishops, there is no word for office. This 
has been put in by the translators without a particle of 
authority for it that I know of. Elders and deacons are 
necessary workers in the church, but not officers in any 
sense, but as workers. All authority in the church is 
through Christ, the great head of the church. But all con- 
gregations need well-informed men to take oversight, to 
teach the word and see to it that all conduct themselves 
as the word of God requires. The work of scriptural dea- 
cons is also necessary ; but they are not officers in any sense 
further than the work they are required to do. 

Brother Lipscomb : Can a man be a bishop or a deacon that has no 
wife? (See 1 Tim. 3: 2, 12.) 

We believe an unmarried or childless man, if otherwise 
qualified, may be a bishop or a deacon. I think where the 
Scripture says "the husband of one wife" it means he must 
have but one wife and be true to her. Then he speaks of 
his having children. It means, since the rule was to have 
children, if he has them, he must rule them well. "But if 
a man knoweth not how to rule his own house, how shall he 
take care of the church of God?" (1 Tim. 3:5.) This 
shows the end of the wife and children was disciplinary to 
teach and train the persons for the work of caring for the 
house of God. Now, if a man gets his training in some 
other way and shows his fitness of ruling, even though he 
has no family of his own, shall the church be deprived of 
his proved talent? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 205 

ELDERS, THE DUTY OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I would like for you to give a 
sketch through the Gospel Advocate on the duties of elders. Is it 
their duty to decide in matters of difficulties in the church? Or, to 
be plain, shall they decide whether a member is walking disorderly 
and the church be subject to their decision, or is it the duty of the 
whole church to vote on the subject? Some of the most intelligent 
members in the church here disagree on the subject. 

We do not know how to make this subject any plainer 
than the New Testament makes it ; and if we tell anything 
that it does not authorize, we shall tell something that will 
do harm. The elders are properly the overseers of the 
congregation, and that would necessarily put them in the 
lead in searching out all matters of difficulty. But, then, 
the elders, the overseers, are to do everything of the kind 
according to the word of God. They are not to do these 
things by their own wisdom. They must ascertain whether 
the party or parties under investigation have violated the 
word of God or not; and if they ascertain that they have, 
then such party or parties must make amends, must place 
themselves right, or they should be withdrawn from; and 
the word of the Lord, not the vote of the church, must de- 
cide all these matters. 

A brother from Giles County asks whether it is the eld- 
er's business to conduct the Lord's-day meetings or not. 
It is certainly his business to conduct such meetings or to 
see that it is done. An overseer must always see that the 
work is done, either by himself or some one else that is 
competent. 

ELDERS, EVANGELISTS, APPOINTIVE. 

Brother Setvell: Can a man be an evangelist according to the 
New Testament, live a Christian, and go to heaven when he dies, 
without the appointing ceremony of laying on of hands? And, upon 
the same grounds, can one be an elder? If so, why the practice? 

We are well aware of the fact that some very earnest, 
good brethren think it the scriptural order that evangelists, 
elders, and deacons should be ordained by fasting, prayer, 
and laying on of hands. But good men's thinking a thing is 
so does not always prove it to be so. We shall have to see 
it in the word of the Lord in a light in which we do not 
now see it before we can accept it as true. The first case 
in the New Testament relied upon as an example of laying 
on hands in ordination is the case of the seven in Acts 6. 
There are some facts in regard to the matter of laying on 
hands in the New Testament that we need to consider. 
Early in the ministry of Christ hands began to be laid on 
people to work miraculous power, as in the case of healing 



206 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

diseases, and one case in pronouncing a blessing upon lit- 
tle children. Christ laid his hands on large numbers and 
healed them. Later on the apostles laid their hands on 
people to heal them and also to confer spiritual gifts. But 
in all that is said in the New Testament preceding the case 
of the seven there is not one word said about laying hands 
on men to ordain or to appoint them to any sort of work or 
office in the church. Nor is it either said or intimated in 
Acts 6 or any other passage in New Testament times that 
hands were to be, or ever had been, laid on to ordain men 
either to office or work. Whence, then, the idea that it 
ever was done? We can see no origin for it but the as- 
sumption of those who claim it. Not only is it a fact that 
hands were laid on extensively to exercise and to impart 
miraculous power, but it is a fact that the apostles were 
the ones that laid hands on the seven, and it is certain they 
were able to impart and work miraculous power. It is also 
a matter of fact that Stephen, one of the seven, began work- 
ing very wonderful miracles immediately after hands were 
laid on him. Now, since hands were all along laid on for 
miraculous purposes, and never one time laid on to ordain 
people, nor a word said in this case that the laying on of 
the hands of the apostles was for the purpose of ordaining 
the seven, who has the right to say hands were laid on to 
ordain them? We claim no one has a word of authority 
for any such a thing, and that it is assumption pure and 
simple for any one to so affirm. 

The next case claimed as a case of ordination by the lay- 
ing on of hands is in Acts 13 : 1-3. In this case also, as in 
that of the seven, those who laid hands on Paul and Bar- 
nabas were men miraculously endowed. It is also true 
that Paul began the working of miracles as soon as he 
started out on his evangelizing tour from Antioch. Hence, 
all the facts in connection with both these are in perfect 
harmony with the idea that hands were laid on to impart 
miraculous power, and not one word to indicate that hands 
were laid on to ordain them. Nor is there one case in the 
New Testament that says any such thing was ever done. 
All the testimony of the word of God is to the effect that 
hands were laid on in all cases to work or to impart mi- 
raculous power and never to ordain men. 

ELDER, IS THE PREACHER OF A CHURCH ONE? 

Brother Seivell: Is a preacher a scriptural elder of a congrega- 
tion by reason of his having received a call to preach for it? 

Not unless he possesses scriptural qualifications when he 
is called. The mere fact that a man is called to preach for 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 207 

a congregation has nothing to do with making him an elder. 
It takes a number of things to make a scriptural elder. 
In the first place, the word elder means older, and is, 
therefore, a term relating to age and not to office. The 
word elder (older) is in the comparative degree. It does 
not necessarily mean an old man, but it means one older 
than the ones with whom he is compared. A man must 
have a good degree of age — of maturity — before he is ready 
to be a scriptural elder; and yet not every man of mature 
years is an elder in the New Testament sense of that word. 
A man must not only have age, but he must have wisdom 
and discretion, and must also have Bible knowledge, that 
he may know how to teach and enforce the word of God; 
for an elder is not to be a mere figurehead, but must be a 
man that can not only teach, but can feed the flock with the 
word of life, and must have a good degree of skill in the 
matter of influencing the members to do the will of God. 
He must not be an arbitrary man that will lord it over God's 
heritage. He must not be a partisan, with partisan views 
to subserve. His own life must be in harmony with the 
will of God also. He must be competent to rule his own 
house in harmony with God's will, or he will not know how 
to take care of the house of God. Many of the preachers 
of modern times are very largely destitute of some of these 
necessary qualifications. Many of them do not keep their 
own lives in harmony with God's will as written, but rather 
in harmony with some human opinion to which they are so 
wedded as to be ready to sacrifice the word of God rather 
than surrender their own opinions. And, unfortunately 
for congregations, preachers of this sort are called to con- 
gregations to be pastors, in the modern acceptation of that 
term, and at once made elders. They then assume control 
of things and introduce human inventions, such as hu- 
manly devised societies, the organ, festivals, and such like. 
Then follows a split in the church, some siding with the 
preacher and glorying in what has been done, while others 
who have conscientious scruples against such things are 
driven out in order to worship God and carry on the work 
of the church as the word of God directs. 

Many are the congregations to-day that have been rent 
in twain that way. And it is quite common for congrega- 
tions that employ young men and make them elders be- 
cause they are preachers, and allow them to take the lead 
and boss things, to find themselves pretty soon in the midst 
of a big church trouble of some sort and finally in an in- 
curable split. Congregations should be thoroughly on their 
guard in these matters; and if they employ a young man 



208 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

to preach the gospel to their neighbors and to teach the 
word of the Lord to the members, then let him devote him- 
self to that work and not assume to boss the congregation. 
Let the elders attend to that. There are very few young 
preachers that are competent to such a task ; and, in fact, 
there are many older ones that are not. It is altogether 
out of harmony with the word of God for a congregation 
to employ a young man as pastor and put the management 
of things into his hands. The elders, and not the young- 
ers, are God's divinely appointed rulers of his people; and 
any perversion of this inspired rule brings trouble sooner 
or later. 

There may be congregations where there is no teaching 
elder and where it becomes necessary to call in some one 
to teach the word, both to the members and to the world ; 
but, as a rule, he should adhere strictly to that business 
and not interfere with the control of the church. Young 
men make good evangelists to bring people into the church ; 
but not many of them are suited to do the work of elders, 
and should not be put at such work. A preacher that would 
split a church for the sake of a human opinion is not fit to 
be either elder or preacher for a congregation, and woe be 
to the congregation that employs such a man and puts the 
control of the church into his hands. Such a man and a 
few thoughtless women can split any church in the land. 

ELDERS, WHISKY, AND DANCING. 

1. Can elders in a congregation rent their property for the pur- 
pose of selling whisky without violating scriptural authority or bring- 
ing into disrepute the church of which they have oversight? 

2. Can an elder, as an overseer of a congregation, tolerate dancing 
by allowing it at his own residence? Does he not cease to be an 
elder in a scriptural sense? 

We have frequently given our conviction of the sinful- 
ness of Christians in any manner becoming partakers in 
the sins of the saloon. There is not a more degrading in- 
fluence in society than the saloon. Its work is to degrade 
and destroy men, to debase and pollute the youth of the 
land, to beggar women and children, and to despoil women 
of their virtue and purity and change them into demons to 
corrupt and deprave society. Certainly no Christian in 
any manner should become a partaker in such work. He 
is commanded to "labor, working with his hands the thing 
which is good." (Eph. 4: 28.) Here the Christian is re- 
stricted in his labor to that which is good. He cannot use 
his property to promote that which he cannot work to pro- 
mote. An elder is to be an example to the flock. While 
things may be borne with in private members, hoping to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 209 

train and save them from their sins, it is not right to bear 
with these in a bishop or elder. He is put forward as an 
approved example of a Christian. A man who is so in- 
sensible to the demands of purity and good morals cannot 
be a scriptural elder. On the same ground, a man who 
tolerates dancing in his own family or at other places is not 
fit for an elder. His own sense of propriety ought to 
teach him not to occupy a representative position when he 
misrepresents the faith of a great number of the members. 
Things may be borne with in a private member to save him 
that could not be tolerated in a representative man. 

Paul (1 Tim. 3:2) says: 'The bishop therefore must be 
without reproach," or "blameless." No man can be with- 
out reproach with all good, true, and prudent men and 
women who uses his property to forward the work of 
whisky selling or encourage the licentiousness of the dance. 
"Moreover he must have a good report of them which are 
without." No man who uses property to forward the 
whisky interest ever had good report of even whisky men. 
Wicked men have no respect for a Christian who shows a 
willingness to compromise morality and right for the sake 
of gain. A man who encourages dancing and jeopardizes 
the virtue of his daughter is never respected as a religious 
man by the wicked themselves. Men who rent their houses 
for the work that degrades men and encourage the dance 
that demoralizes and destroys the modesty and endangers 
the virtue of both men and women cannot be elders or bish- 
ops in a church governed by the word of God. D. L. 

ELDERS, THEIR JURISDICTON. 

Brother Lipscomb: How far does an elder's jurisdiction extend? 
In other words, suppose we have a congregation here and meet every 
Lord's day and a member moves into our midst and meets with us 
occasionally; do the elders here have jurisdiction over him, even if he 
refuses to let his name be put on the book commonly called the 
"church book?" What does it take to make a man a member of a 
local congregation? 

If a man is a member of the church of Christ, he is such 
wherever he is or goes. The Bible says not a thing of 
joining local congregations. Wherever Paul went, he was 
a member of the church of God there, whether at Ephesus, 
Troas, Corinth, Jerusalem, or Rome. If a Christian comes 
into a community where there is a church of God, he is a 
member of that church. He became so when he became a 
Christian, and wherever he goes he is a member of the 
church of Christ; and if he fails to do his duty, he ought 
to be admonished, exhorted, and disciplined. 



210 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ELECT, THE. 

In the second Epistle of Paul, the apostle, to Timothy, second chap- 
ter and tenth verse, we have this language: "Therefore I endure all 
things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation 
which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." I do not understand 
who the elect were, unless they were those that were called at that 
time by God to preach to and teach the Gentiles. 

We think there can be no doubt but the elect were the 
Christians — those who had professed faith in Christ. 
They were God's elect. Paul endured all things that these 
might be faithful unto death and be saved in Christ Jesus 
with eternal glory. D. L. 

ELECT, GOD'S. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give me your views on 2 
Tim. 1: 8, 9, but more particularly verse 9, which reads thus: "Who 
hath saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our 
works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given 
us in Christ Jesus before the world began." Also please explain 
Tit. 1: 1, 2, which reads thus: "Paul, a servant of God, and an apos- 
tle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God's elect, and the ac- 
knowledging of the truth which is after godliness; in hope of eternal 
life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." 
What is meant by "God's elect," and who did God promise "before 
the world began?" 

God's elect are his obedient children. The word elect 
means chosen. His people are chosen through the gospel 
when they obey the gospel. Peter, in the first chapter of 
his first letter, calls his brethren "elect according to the 
foreknowledge of God ;" and in the latter part of the same 
chapter he tells how they were chosen, or elected, of God: 
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth: 
. . . being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of 
incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth 
forever." These people became the elect, or chosen, of God 
by obeying the truth, which is the word of God, by which 
they are born again. When born again, they are Chris- 
tians — God's elect; and if you desire to know what word 
they obeyed in purifying their souls, in being born again, 
turn and read Acts 2, for Peter was writing to those who 
obeyed the gospel at Jerusalem and were afterwards scat- 
tered abroad. Any man or woman may be one of God's 
elect by obeying the gospel, which is God's power for sal- 
vation ; but no man can be one of God's elect who will not 
obey him, for the disobedient will all be lost. 

Peter says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained be- 
fore the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these 
last times for you." Thus Christ was foreordained and in 
the mind of God promised before the world began. But all 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 211 

we know about the promises of God is what the Bible re- 
veals regarding them. In a very short time after the 
world began the Lord began to promise a coming Savior, 
and in this passage Paul speaks of God promising eternal 
life before the world began. And this statement of Paul 
we must believe, whether we can explain it or not. There 
are many things in the Bible that are to be believed that the 
wisdom of man may not be able to explain any further than 
the plain expression of the words used. The word world 
does not always mean this earth. It may mean age or in- 
stitution, and it may mean that in this passage ; and if so, 
then it may mean the promises of God pertaining to eter- 
nal life through Jesus, which were given before the church 
of God, the last age or dispensation of God's grace on this 
earth, began. But of this we speak not positively. 

ELECTION, FOREORDINATION, PREDESTINATION. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I would like to see your explana- 
tion on Rom. 8, where it speaks of election, foreordination, predesti- 
nation, etc. 

We understand the passage to refer to what takes place 
in this life in connection with the church of God. Here 
are the verses as they stand : "And we know that all things 
work together for good to them that love God, to them who 
are the called according to his purpose. For whom he did 
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the 
image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among 
many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them 
he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: 
and whom he justified, them he also glorified. What shall 
we then say to these things ? If God be for us, who can be 
against us?" In most places in the New Testament — we 
might, perhaps, say in all— where the words foreordain, 
foreknowledge, predestinated, and such like, are used, they 
simply refer back to the Old Testament, where God not only 
foreknew, but foreordained and predestinated, all things 
pertaining to Jesus Christ and the salvation to be provided 
through him. To foreknow means to know before. So to 
foreordain means to ordain before, without intimating how 
long before. God foreordained, after man sinned, to pre- 
pare a plan of salvation for his rescue from sin. He fore- 
ordained also that when he should send his Son into the 
world he would put his words into his mouth, and he pre- 
destinated that all that would not hear his words should be 
destroyed, while those that would hear him should be saved 
by him. But he never foreordained that certain ones should 
believe and be saved and that certain others should disbe- 



212 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lieve and be lost. That was left to the choice of men. 
And Christ put the destiny of man precisely upon that 
ground when he commanded the apostles to preach the gos- 
pel to every creature, saying : "He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." All of God's decrees are based upon this prin- 
ciple. This is but the expression in the New Testament of 
what God foreordained in the Old Testament. But the 
words foreknowledge and foreordain are not found in the 
Old Testament at all ; but in former ages God foreknew and 
foretold certain things that were to happen afterwards, 
and the New Testament develops these things and speaks 
of them as foreordained, etc. He says to those Christians 
at Rome, "All things work together for good/' etc., speak- 
ing to them in the present tense, expressing to them what 
was true of them and of all Christians. He then says to 
the same persons : "For whom he did foreknow, he also did 
predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son." 
This we understand to refer to becoming a Christian. In 
becoming Christians we obey the form of doctrine as ex- 
pressed in chapter 6. The doctrine is the death, burial, 
and resurrection of Christ. When we obey the gospel, we 
come into the similitude of that. We die to sin, are bur- 
ied with him in baptism, and arise to walk in newness of 
life. So also at the same time we are conformed to the 
image of the Son of God. Obeying the form of doctrine and 
being conformed to the image of his Son represent one and 
the same thing. Then the expressions justified and glori- 
fied are strong expressions, indicating the entire remission 
of all past sins and their acceptance as the sons and daugh- 
ters of the Lord Almighty, and glorified by being admitted 
into the church, the temple of God, the body of Christ, 
here, with the promise of eternal life to all who continue 
faithful till death. 

It is thought by some that the expression glorified cannot 
lawfully be applied to Christians in this life ; but we can see 
no reason why not. Men are glorified by the Lord in being 
permitted a place in his temple, wherein his Holy Spirit 
dwells. And, besides, the same Greek word rendered glo- 
rified in this passage is elsewhere applied to members of 
the church. In 1 Cor. 12: 26 we have the following: "And 
whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ; 
or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it." 
The word honored here is the same Greek word rendered 
glorified in Rom. 8, and in the passage in Corinthians there 
can be no doubt about its referring to members of the 
church. So that difficulty is out of the way. We, then, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 213 

regard the whole passage as quoted above from Rom. 8 as 
being only a strong figurative representation of what takes 
place in men called by the gospel of the grace of God. 
When they obey the gospel, they are pardoned, justified, and 
glorified with a place in the body of Christ. E. G. S. 

EMBLEMS, WHO MUST PREPARE THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you be so kind as to tell us 
through your paper who should prepare the bread and wine of the 
Lord's Supper (I mean whether saint or sinner) ? Of what and how 
are both composed? My reason for inquiry is that some of our breth- 
ren sometimes use the common cracker and blackberry wine at the 
Lord's table, and I object to it; but if I am wrong, I want to be 
righted, and I believe that you can give me and others some light 
on the subject. 

We have no instruction whatever as to who shall sow the 
wheat, plow it in, reap it, thrash it, grind it, or make it 
into bread for the Lord's Supper. So we can give none. 
It always seems to me a careless, indifferent way to take a 
cracker or something that just happens to be at hand. 
That used by the Savior was bread made or used during 
passover week — unleavened bread. It is safe to use this, 
and it is well to be on safe ground in all religious service. 
It is worth taking some trouble about, or it is not worth at- 
tending to at all. The Lord used the juice of the grape, 
the fruit of the vine. He set it apart as the memorial of 
his blood. Nothing else has been set apart as the memorial 
of his blood to men. God alone in Christ could consecrate 
a memorial of his blood. For any one to displace the 
fruit of the vine with anything else is for man to assume 
the prerogative of God and substitute his devices for God's 
appointments. I could take nothing as the memorial of his 
blood but what he appointed — the juice of the grape. 

END, FROM THE BEGINNING, DOES GOD SEE THE? 

If God sees the end from the beginning and knows all that will 
come to pass, how can men change that order or be responsible? 

It is not my business to tell how God can do this or that 
and be consistent with the ideas we form of right and jus- 
tice. I may fail utterly to comprehend how he can do it, 
but that does not alter the facts as to what he knows and 
does. Some one propounded this difficulty to Paul, or he 
saw that it would be asked and forestalled the trouble oth- 
ers would have in answering it ; so he gave the answer, ap- 
proved by the Holy Spirit: "Therefore hath he mercy on 
whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 
Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? 



214 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, man, who art 
thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed 
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump 
to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?" 
(Rom. 9: 18-21.) That is precisely the question: If God 
foresaw it as it is, who hath resisted his will? How could 
it be helped ? I am not called on to give a different answer 
from Paul's. If our faith rests on our understanding of 
how God does this or that, it is not acceptable. But why 
should not God know all things from the beginning? Did 
he order affairs that he did not know how they would work? 
Does he foreknow anything? If he sees one thing in the 
future, as we call it, why not everything? What hinders? 
Man foresees some things, but not all things. Why? Be- 
cause his vision is feeble; he has only one-sided views of 
premises; some things are too high for him to see over 
them, some difficulties too dark for him to see through 
them. But are any of these things true of God? Is his 
vision feeble? Does he have to take one-sided views of 
things? Are hills too high for him to overlook them? 
Are not all the premises and conditions laid bare to him? 
What hinders him from seeing the results that flow from 
the causes he has himself set in motion? 

We must not attribute human weakness to God. God 
has foresight ; he did foresee and foretell many things that 
would come to pass. If he could foresee one thing in the 
future, why could he not foresee everything? Man can fore- 
see some things, and not others, because his vision is weak, 
partial, one-sided, and he understands but few of present 
conditions from which future results flow; but none of 
these weaknesses are true of God. He sees the end from 
the beginning, and our not seeing how to reconcile it with 
other things that we think are true is not sufficient ground 
for denying these qualities and this power. Man can see 
everything within the range or scope of his vision, save 
what imperfection or weakness of that vision hinders; 
God can see everything in the range or scope of his vision, 
time, and space, unless imperfection prevents. Is God's 
vision weak? If God can look down the vista of time and 
see one thing that will happen one thousand years hence, 
what can hinder his seeing everything that can happen dur- 
ing that thousand years? But God is an eternal I Am. 
Time and space with him are nothing. Study these things, 
and do not measure the perfections of God by our frail and 
weak senses and imperfect reasonings. D. L. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 215 

ENDOR, WAS SAMUEL CALLED UP BY THE WITCH OF? 

Brother Lipscomb: In 1 Sam. 28: 7-20, do you think that Samuel 
was summoned from the other world through the power of the woman 
with a "familiar spirit?" If so, do you believe we have people to-day 
who have these "familiar spirits?" 

The woman was a pretender and a deceiver. The whole 
class of them were severely condemned by God as deceiv- 
ers and pretenders. The soul forsaken by God sought com- 
fort and assurance through her. She called for Samuel, 
not expecting him to appear, but that she could make a 
representation that would satisfy Saul and secure a fee 
from him. The appearance of Samuel was unexpected to 
her, and greatly frightened her ; so she cried out with fear. 
God raised Samuel unexpectedly to her to reprove her and 
Saul. I do not think she had power to raise any one ; God 
interfered and raised Samuel on this occasion. I do not 
think any one has power to call up the dead now. There 
are persons with familiar spirits who may produce appear- 
ances on those under their spell that deceive them. 

EPH. 4: 13-16. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Eph. 4: 13-16. 

The passage, including several verses preceding it, is as 
follows: "Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on 
high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 
. . . And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; 
and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for 
the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, 
for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all come in 
the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of 
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
of the fullness of Christ: that we henceforth be no more 
children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every 
wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craft- 
iness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive; but speaking 
the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which 
is the head, even Christ: from whom the whole body fitly 
joined together and compacted by that which every joint 
supplieth, according to the effectual working in the meas- 
ure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the 
edifying of itself in love." These gifts were the inspired 
men that were given to reveal the religion of Christ and 
to teach and edify the church in the first age of it, when 
there was no New Testament to look to for the full devel- 
opment of the gospel plan of salvation. These were to 
continue until a full presentation of the whole matter of 



216 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Christianity should be revealed and put to record. This 
was accomplished in the giving of the New Testament, 
which fully furnishes the man of God unto all good works. 
When this should be done, these miraculous gifts were to 
cease, and did cease. The ushering in of the New Testa- 
ment gave the entire plan of salvation, with all its require- 
ments, furnishing the means to the whole church of coming 
into the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son 
of God ; so that now, with the New Testament in hand, 
there is no need for people to be tossed about with all sorts 
of errors and opinions of men ; but with that in possession, 
all can speak the truth in love and can grow up in Christ, 
their Head, and can edify one another in love. A wonder- 
ful blessing was conferred upon the church when the New 
Testament in full was given to it. These miraculously en- 
dowed men were not given as permanent officers in the 
church, as some people claim; they were given only to es- 
tablish and teach, edify the church, till something more 
permanent should be established. So soon as that was 
done these miraculous gifts ceased ; and since that time the 
church is not to look to men, but to the New Testament, 
the last gift of the Holy Spirit to the church and for the 
world. The written words of the Holy Spirit serve the 
same purpose now that the apostles and all miraculously 
endowed men did when they were present; so the church 
can now edify itself in love without the aid of any other 
inspired men. While inspired men were a necessity then, 
they are not needed now ; yet the church is better equipped 
for its work now, both in converting sinners and in edify- 
ing saints, than when these gifts of miraculously endowed 
men were here. Hence it is not the fault of God that the 
religious world is so divided. The fault is in the people, 
and not with God. If they would go by the word of truth 
furnished to them by the Holy Spirit through those in- 
spired men, they would all be one; but the trouble is that 
many of them will not be governed by this word. Hence, 
divisions have arisen and still continue to exist. 

EVANGELISTS, AUTHORITY OF. 

Has an evangelist any power as a ruler in the church? Has he 
any right to call in question the decision of elders in case of disci- 
pline? 

Evangelists have no rights in congregations of which 
they are not members. above the humblest Christian in the 
land. Any Christian, when he sees elders or others going 
wrong, has the right and is under obligation to try to con- 
vince them of what is right. But that is the end of his au- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 217 

thority. Paul sent Titus and Timothy — inspired men — to 
direct the churches that had never had elders set to work 
to see that this was done. This does not authorize unin- 
spired men to interfere with any congregation having its 
elders to oversee it as the Scriptures direct. It is their duty, 
as it is of every individual Christian, to try to show elders 
or others what the Bible teaches — what is right and what is 
wrong. Further than this they have no rights. 

EVIL, DID GOD CREATE? 

Brother Sew ell: Please explain Isa. 45: 7, in which God says: "I 
create evil." Did God ever create anything bad? 

In our sense of the word bad and of the word create, he 
never did ; but in a Bible sense, he has and still does. The 
ancient Persians are said to have believed in two opposing 
deities or powers, one of which always brought good to 
men, while the other brought evil; and they attributed all 
the good things that came to them to one of these, and all 
the evil to the other. But God lets them know in this verse 
that he is the author of all things. The full verse says: 
"I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and 
create evil; I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things." 
God was talking of Cyrus, the Medo-Persian king that was 
later to capture Babylon on account of the wickedness of 
that great city, and he would have Cyrus and others know 
that he did all these things. He also said, as if talking to 
Cyrus, and after calling him by name, more than a hundred 
years before it came to pass, that he would go before him, 
and make rough places smooth, and break the doors of 
brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron, and give him the 
treasures of darkness, all indicating that he would enable 
him to capture Babylon, and that Cyrus should know that it 
was Jehovah that should do all these things. And though 
this prophecy was uttered more than a hundred years be- 
fore Cyrus was born, it was all literally fulfilled, and Cyrus 
was led to see that it was the work of the God of heaven, and 
not the work of his imaginary deities, that all those won- 
derful things were to come to pass. The sense, therefore, 
in which God created evil in this passage is that he would 
stir up Cyrus, the Mede, to destroy Babylon when the time 
should come for it. This was actually done, and God 
opened the way for it to be a success. When the Jewish 
people became so wicked that God would not endure their 
rebellion longer, he stirred up Nebuchadnezzar, king of 
Babylon, to humble them by capturing them, destroying 
their great city and country and carrying them captives to 
Babylon. And when Babylon became too wicked to be 



218 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

longer endured, he stirred up the Medes and Persians, who, 
led on by Cyrus, accomplished the prophecy in full. War 
is a great evil on any country, and God only brings it upon 
people to accomplish necessary ends. But because God 
uses one nation to destroy another is no proof that the na- 
tion he thus uses is a righteous people. It only means the 
wicked are the sword of the Lord to punish and humble an- 
other people more wicked than they. Men originated war- 
fare, but God turns it to accomplish his ends. He also uses 
famines, pestilences, earthquakes, great storms, and such 
like things, for similar ends. But he never brings bad 
things into existence for evil ends. He only uses evil 
things already in existence to fulfill his will, his purposes, 
just as he did in the destruction of Babylon and other 
wicked nations. All the judgments God brings upon men 
seem evil to them; but these judgments are only brought 
upon men for their good, not bad things for bad purposes. 

"EVIL SPIRIT," HOW "FROM GOD?" 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Sam. 18: 10. What I want 
commented on is the evil spirit going out from God. 

The Scriptures in many places teach that when a man 
sins against God persistently, God sends an evil spirit upon 
him to lead him on to his ruin. Take 1 Kings 22: 20-22: 
"And the Lord said, Who shall persuade Ahab, that he may 
go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead ? . . . And he said, I 
will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of 
all his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt persuade him, 
and prevail also: go forth, and do so." Ahab was one of 
the most wicked and idolatrous princes of Israel. God 
desired he should be slain at Ramoth-gilead, and so a spirit 
went forth to mislead these prophets of Baal, whom Ahab 
worshiped, that he might be slain. The same principle is 
set forth in Isa. 66 : 4 : "I also will choose their delusions, 
and will bring their fears upon them ; because when I called, 
none did answer ; when I spake, they did not hear : but they 
did evil before mine eyes, and chose that in which I de- 
lighted not." This means that when we refuse to hear and 
obey God, he sends such delusions upon us as will bring us 
to ruin. The same is set forth in 2 Thess. 2 : 11, 12 : "And 
for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that, 
they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned 
who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unright- 
eousness." When men will not believe the truth, but have 
pleasure in unrighteousness, God sends such a delusion on 
them that they may believe a lie that will lead them to 
their own destruction. God never sends an evil spirit or a 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 219 

delusion upon a good man, or upon one willing to obey him ; 
but he sends these upon the wicked and disobedient that 
they may go down to ruin. All spirits are subject to God, 
the evil as well as the good. He sends the evil spirits to 
afflict the wicked and lead them to deeper ruin; he sends 
the good spirit to lead and comfort the obedient and faith- 
ful. God leads those who seek to know and obey him into 
the fullness of all truth and into the blessings flowing 
therefrom. The disobedient, those not willing to obey God, 
he sends into the paths of darkness and death leading to 
a deeper ruin. 

EVIL, HOW "RESIST NOT?" 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: You will please explain what is 
meant in our Savior's Sermon on the Mount as recorded in Matt. 5: 
39-41: "But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever 
shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And 
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let 
him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a 
mile, go with him twain." Does this apply to us; and if so, are we 
to observe it in this way? When we are smitten by our fellow man, 
regardless of cause, are we to return the blow with double force if 
possible? And if we are to apply these verses in the way that Christ 
gave them, certainly other passages of scripture will strengthen it. 
I remember the first literary school my parents sent me to. The 
teacher impressed upon my mind a rule which I shall never forget. 
He told me if any difficulty were to happen between any of my school- 
mates and myself, though they maltreated me, not to return the 
same to them, but come and lay the trouble before him, he being the 
proper one to reprove and punish the unruly. I have studied the will 
of my Heavenly Master enough to learn in some of his teachings 
where he said : "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord." 

The full passage is: "Ye have heard that it hath been 
said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth : but I say 
unto you, That ye resist not evil : but whosoever shall smite 
thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And 
if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, 
let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel 
thee to go a mile, go with him twain." Most of the Sermon 
on the Mount is taken up in laying down the general prin- 
ciples of the religion that he had come into the world to 
establish, and the language of it must be understood in 
this way. This sermon was not intended to give the spe- 
cific precepts of Christianity, but to express the general 
light in which we are to regard all precepts or commands 
of the New Testament and the spirit we are to cultivate as 
Christians. The law of Moses in many respects allowed 
retaliation for injuries, as expressed in the above, "An eye 
for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth," etc. ; but Jesus says : 
"I say unto you, That ye resist not evil." He thus intro- 



220 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

duces a principle entirely different from that contained in 
the law. He here forbids violence in every particular and 
gives three illustrations of it, as in the above passage. The 
whole idea is: We must not resist evil by doing evil in 
return, must not resist violence by doing violence in re- 
turn. Paul says, in applying this principle: "Recompense 
to no man evil for evil." (Rom. 12: 17.) And again: "If 
thine enemy hunger, feed him ; if he thirst, give him drink : 
for in so doing thou shalt heap coals of fire on his head. 
Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good." 
(Verses 20, 21.) 

These passages explain and apply the principle laid down 
by the Savior when he forbids us to resist evil. The three 
items of turning the other cheek, giving up the cloak, and 
going two miles when forced to go one, are put in by the 
Savior to illustrate what he means by telling his disciples 
not to resist evil. Perhaps in our whole lifetime just these 
things mentioned here will not occur; but many things of 
like character will occur, to which we can apply these illus- 
trations and know how we ought to act in the premises. 
The life of Christ himself is a good illustration of this prin- 
ciple ; and if we will study his life, what he did and how he 
acted under all the trials through which he passed, we can 
then very well understand what he meant. Peter, in pre- 
senting Christ as our exemplar, says: "For even hereunto 
were ye called : because Christ also suffered for us, leaving 
us an example, that ye should follow his footsteps : who did 
no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth; who, when 
he was reviled, reviled not again ; when he suffered, he 
threatened not ; but committed himself to him that judgeth 
righteously." (1 Pet. 2: 21-23.) Christ never did any 
violence, never resisted any evil by force, or by doing evil 
in return for evil, but acted upon principles of kindness, of 
love and mercy, and thus left us an example that we should 
follow. 

We must, as Christians, learn how to live out the princi- 
ple of nonresistance taught and lived out by the Son of God 
and taught also by the Holy Spirit through the apostles; 
and if even the very things mentioned by the Savior should 
occur with us, we must act as he enjoins and trust God for 
the result, and all will be well with us. E. G. S. 

EXTORTION. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If there is a brother who asks 
three dollars per barrel for his corn, and at the same time many good 
brethren and widowed sisters have to buy, and they come and offer 
him the customary price — say, two dollars and fifty cents per bar- 
rel — and he turns them off, saying, "No, I will wait; next summer I 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 221 

can get three dollars," is he not committing the next thing to extor- 
tion? Or if a brother in good circumstances has corn, and corn is 
scarce — can hardly be had even for the money — and what he has, 
and more, too, is needed in his own neighborhood, and he sells it, or 
a good part of it, to a big merchant, thus depriving his brethren and 
neighbors (who have not the money as this merchant) of the benefit 
of that they must have or starve, is he not doing as bad? Now, dear 
brethren, what think you? Those above mentioned will cry out: 
"Deal with the drunkard, with the dancer, and with the adulterer." 
Which is the worse? 

We cannot undertake to decide questions involving the 
character of brethren without having all the facts on both 
sides. If there are no mitigating circumstances in the 
above cases, the brethren alluded to have both done wrong. 
But it may be that if we could hear their statement of the 
matter and hear all the facts on their side, their case might 
prove to be a very different one from the above. So we 
cannot and should not undertake to give a definite answer 
to such questions. The very effort to do such a thing 
would be doing injustice to ourselves and might do a very 
serious injustice to the parties. Wrongdoing ought to be 
rebuked everywhere, and covetousness and extortion ought 
to be dealt with as rigidly as lying or theft. But congre- 
gations of which such men are members are the ones to de- 
termine their guilt and pass the sentence, not those who are 
far away and know nothing of the particulars or reasons 
for such action. Christian character is a very delicate 
thing to deal with, and rigid justice should always be done 
in such cases. E. G. S. 

EZEK. 37. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please explain the teach- 
ing of Ezek. 37, especially verses 14, 15, and 16? Was the Spirit 
given to enable them to know the Lord, or were they to know him 
because of their chastisement for sin? 

When this prophecy was uttered, the Jews were in cap- 
tivity; and the Lord, by strongly figurative language, was 
foretelling their restoration to their own land. In verses 
12, 13 he speaks of them as if they were in their graves, 
and promises to bring them out of their graves and bring 
them into their own land again ; and then verse 14 comes 
in, saying: "And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall 
live, and I shall place you in your own land : then shall ye 
know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, 
saith the Lord." The giving of his Spirit is put in to carry 
out the figure of restoration to life, and has nothing to do 
with their knowing the Lord. They were to know him by 
his dealings with them, by his carrying into effect what he 
had foretold. He first foretold to them that the would 



222 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

carry them into captivity on account of their sins, which he 
did. Now he tells them he will bring them back into their 
own land, and that when they were thus brought back, as 
he prophesied they should be, they should know that he is 
the Lord. 

The two sticks spoken of in verse 16 were simply to illus- 
trate to the Jews that when they should return to their own 
land they should be one nation, and not divided any more, 
as they had been. Verse 22 fully expresses the end of the 
matter as illustrated by the two sticks: "And I will make 
them one nation in the land upon the mountains of Israel." 

E. G. S. 

FAITH, HOW "THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED 
FOR." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In what respect could the apostle 
say that "faith is the substance of things hoped for?" (See Heb. 
11: 1.) Is the present rendering correct? 

The word substance means, literally, that which stands 
under, as a support, or stay, just as a pillar stands under 
and supports whatever is placed upon it. The things that 
Christians hope for are the blessings of eternal life, and no 
man can hope for eternal life that does not believe all that 
is said in the Bible regarding it. As well think of building 
a house in the air, without any pillar or foundation for it 
to rest upon, as to think of having a hope of eternal life 
without faith. Nor is faith alone a sufficient foundation; 
it requires a faith perfected by obedience to be sufficient. 
When a man believes the gospel and obeys it and continues 
to live the Christian, that man has a faith that will do for 
a foundation for hope, and nothing short of that will. 
Hence the verse might be correctly rendered something 
like the following: "Now faith is the foundation of things 
hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." A living 
faith lays hold of the promises of eternal life as realities, 
and rejoices in them, and patiently bears the toils and trou- 
bles of life, looking forward to a home where troubles and 
afflictions can never come. E. G. S. 

FAITH, THE, THAT HEALED THE CRIPPLE. 

Please give your understanding as to whose faith it was that 
healed the cripple at the beautiful gate of the temple; also the reason 
for your opinion. 

It was the faith of the apostles in Christ, not the faith 
of the man that was healed, for he had no faith till healed. 
There was in those days a faith that enabled its possessor 
to perform miracles. Christ referred to this kind of faith 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 223 

when he said to the apostles: "If ye have faith as a grain 
of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove 
hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing 
shall be impossible unto you." (Matt. 17: 20.) The same 
sort of faith is spoken of in 1 Cor. 12: 9, where Paul, in 
speaking of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, says: "To 
another faith by the same Spirit." This kind of faith, or 
power, was the gift of God for the special purpose of per- 
forming miracles that is not now possessed. But if Chris- 
tians will cultivate firm and unflinching faith in God and 
his word, they can do almost anything through Christ, ex- 
cept to perform miraculous power. The faith, therefore, 
that healed the lame man was in the apostles. Hence, Pe- 
ter said: "And his name through faith in his name hath 
made this man strong, whom ye see and know: yea, the 
faith which is by him hath given him this perfect sound- 
ness in the presence of you all." This is the way Peter 
explained this case of healing. Since the days of miracles 
there is none of this sort of faith, because God does not be- 
stow it now. But by earnest faith Christians can accom- 
plish much now; but this is a faith they must exercise in 
their own hearts and practice in their own lives by doing 
the Lord's will. 

FAITH, THE, THAT PURIFIES. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I have always entertained differ- 
ent views from the brethren in regard to the faith spoken of by Peter 
in Acts 15: 9, when he said: "And put no difference between us and 
them, purifying their hearts by faith." I understand the faith 
spoken of in this connection to be in contrast with the law, and that 
obedience to the faith (or gospel) purines their hearts. It is plain 
to any to see that faith in Christ purines the heart, but I cannot see 
how faith on the outside can. Peter says: "Seeing ye have purified 
your souls in obeying the truth." I cannot see any difference in this 
connection between the soul and heart, for it was obedience to the 
truth that caused the purification. In fact, I have known many per- 
sons who had strong faith who stood aloof from the church. We 
cannot conscientiously say their hearts were purified by faith, and 
they believed that God would pardon their sins if they would obey 
the form of doctrine from the heart; but their souls were not puri- 
fied because they did not obey the truth. John says: "The pure in 
heart shall see God" (enjoy God). Now, let us compare Peter and 
John, and we will have people enjoying God without baptism. Hence 
we will have to admit that the sects have pure hearts, for they have 
faith and honest purpose; but they would hoot at the idea of being 
baptized for the remission of sins. We say faith is what they need. 
Yes, they need faith in the conditions, but not in the facts. The 
Savior said: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved." Be- 
lieves what? The death, burial, and resurrection. In that day, when 
any believe this, it would abrogate the law in their mind, and should 
have produced motives as high as heaven to obey the command from 
so divine a being. I believe when we put full confidence in the word 



224 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of God and renounce self and are baptized, we then have the purified 
heart that Peter spoke of. I believe our hearts are as pure before 
baptism as after — that is, in motive, but not in a scriptural point of 
view. 

We have very good evidence that Cornelius' heart was as pure 
before he believed as after, for he was a "devout man, and one that 
feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, 
and prayed to God alway." Surely he proves an exemplary character. 

Jesus Christ was the Son of God before he was baptized; yet God 
did not acknowledge him as his Son until after. Right there I think 
God will acknowledge our hearts to be pure. 

We think our brother is making a distinction where there 
is no real difference. We have not heard any of our breth- 
ren claim that any man's heart will be pure for one mo- 
ment after he willingly disregards any requirement of 
God's word. If at any period of the Christian's life he re- 
fuses to do what God commands, his heart ceases to be 
pure. When Simon, the sorcerer, believed and was bap- 
tized, his heart was pure till he thought the gift of God 
might be purchased with money. Then Peter said to him : 
"Thy heart is not right." His heart got wrong in that 
thought. From the time any one becomes a believer in the 
gospel of Christ and resolves in his heart to obey the Lord, 
we think his heart is pure till he falters in yielding that 
obedience. If he refuses to repent, his heart is no longer 
pure ; if he repents and refuses to be baptized, his heart is 
no longer pure ; and if he goes on and is baptized, and then 
after becoming a Christian willingly refuses any command 
of God, his heart that moment becomes impure. No man 
can keep his heart pure except by a willing and hearty sub- 
mission to all that God requires. A pure heart is always 
ready and anxious to do everything that God has com- 
manded, and no man need talk about a pure heart who does 
not obey the will of God. We do not think our brethren 
generally differ on these points. E. G. S. 

FALLEN WOMEN, DUTY OF THE CHURCH TOWARD. 

Brother Lipscomb: A young lady who is a member of the Chris- 
tian Church went astray about a year ago, much to the surprise and 
grief of her many friends. She had always borne a good name and 
was highly respected. Now some of the members, including myself, 
are trying to induce her to attend Sunday school, as she used to do 
before her downfall. She wants to go, but she fears that she will be 
looked down upon and perhaps insulted. If she goes, she will have 
to take her little child, a few months old, with her, as she has no one 
to leave it with who will take care of it for her. Now, the trouble 
is this: Several of the members say that if she comes to Sunday 
school and brings the child there, they will leave; that she is a 
brazen-faced thing, with no sense of shame about her, if she does so. 
I and some others cannot see it that way. We think she should have 
a helping hand and be lifted up. She is nowise "brazen," as they 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 225 

term it, but feels her disgrace most bitterly, and has shed many bit- 
ter tears over the loss of her good name. We want you to tell us 
through the Gospel Advocate what you think is right. What should 
we do about it? Should she partake of the Lord's Supper? 

That woman's soul is as precious in the sight of God as 
the soul of any one of those who object to her attending 
church. She needs and is entitled to the help and strength 
derived through waiting upon God in his appointments as 
much as any other human being. The sin she committed 
is no greater in the sight of God than many sins com- 
mitted by others that are considered lightly. The sin she 
committed is no greater than the sin of those who deny her 
the right to repent and enjoy the privileges and blessings of 
the church of God. Jesus died to save that child as much 
as any other child living. It needs and is as much entitled 
to be brought up in the nurture and training of the Lord 
as any child living. The attempt or disposition to deny 
either shows a lack of the spirit of Christ and exhibits the 
self-righteous, Pharisaical spirit that God despises above 
all others. 

A case of this kind was brought before Jesus — the woman 
taken in adultery. You know how others were ready to 
stone her. He said to them : "He that is without sin among 
you, let him first cast a stone at her." None did it, but, 
self-condemned, they slunk away in shame, because Jesus 
had laid bare their hypocrisy, and said to the woman : "Go, 
and sin no more." That case is before Jesus again. The 
church is the body of Christ to deal with this woman and 
all other erring ones as Christ would deal with them. How 
does she act? These brethren and sisters, claiming to be 
possessed of his spirit and to represent him, instead of en- 
couraging the woman, as Jesus did, to sin no more, join 
the hypocritical crowd in crying, "Stone her," and push 
her off from help to repent and leave her in the ways of sin. 
0, no ! If the woman repents of her sin, she is not half so 
bad in the sight of God as those who refuse to forgive and 
encourage her to a life of holiness. The special mission 
and work of the church is to rescue and save such souls 
from sin. 

Of course, a woman that repents of her sin would not be 
brazen and forward, and she must expect and be willing 
to bear reproach. The trouble is that the greater number 
of them are so abashed and discouraged that they allow 
themselves to be driven into sinful courses. It was in ref- 
erence to just such a case as this that Paul said : "Ye should 
rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means 
such a one should be swallowed up with his overmuch sor- 
row." It is no greater sin for a woman to fall in this way 



226 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

than for a man. I think it probable that Mary Magdalene, 
as tradition tells, had been a sinner in this direction. I 
think it probable because Jesus had cast seven devils out 
of her. Devils occupied only sinful hearts ; yet she became 
one of the nearest and best beloved of the companions of 
Jesus. To her he first appeared after he arose from the 
dead. 

"FALLING AWAY," MEANING OF. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Heb. 6: 4-6. We would like to 
have an explanation of the entire three verses, but more particularly 
of verse 6, as to what the writer means by "fall away." "Fall away" 
from what? 

The whole letter to the Hebrews was written to warn 
and encourage the Jewish converts against turning back 
from Jesus Christ to the Jewish religion. It is difficult to 
tell what is meant by the "first principles of Christ" that 
they were to cease to speak of. It seems to me the context 
and scope show it was the Jewish law that is called the 
"first principles of Christ" that they were to cease to speak 
of or teach. The "dead works," I am sure, meant the 
works of the Jewish law, in which the Hebrews had once 
walked, of which they had repented ; and he tells them not 
to go back to these dead works, and so lay again the foun- 
dation for repenting of them and of renewing faith in God 
and baptism and these other acts of obedience. They had 
once repented of these things. If you give up Christ and 
go back to Judaism, they will have to be repented of again. 
Do not turn back, so as to have to do these first steps over 
again. This course the apostle promised they would do 
if God permitted. Then he tells as touching those who 
were once enlightened (by knowing Christ), had tasted of 
the heavenly gift and were made partakers of the Holy 
Ghost, had tasted the good word of God and the powers 
of the age to come, and then fell away, it is impossible to 
renew them again to repentance; which means that the 
Hebrew Christians who had believed in Christ and en- 
joyed the privileges of the gospel, and had then given up 
Christ, had fallen away from him and had gone back to 
Judaism, could not again be renewed to repentance, for in 
thus repudiating Christ and going back to Judaism they 
crucified the Son of God afresh and put him to an open 
shame. I think there can be no doubt but this is the mean- 
ing. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 227 

FAN, WHEAT AND CHAFF. 

Brother Lipscomb: What was the "fan" that Jesus had, and how 
did he use it? (Matt. 3: 12.) 

John the Baptist told that "he that cometh after me is 
mightier than I, . . . whose fan is in his hand, and 
he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat 
into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with un- 
quenchable fire." (Matt. 3: 11, 12.) The fan was a win- 
nowing fan that was used to separate the chaff from the 
wheat. Jesus came under the law of Moses. He came to 
fully obey that law, fulfill it, and take it out of the way. 
Like all laws and institutions touched and used by man, it 
had been defiled by many additions and changes by men. 
In the very beginning of his public ministry Jesus began 
to separate the true laws of God from the teachings and 
modifications of man that had been added to this law by 
man through tradition handed down from the elders. The 
Sermon on the Mount is a separating the true teachings 
given by God from the additions and changes by man. 
Even the things not approved by God, but tolerated on ac- 
count of the hardness of the hearts of the people, were 
purged out from the law of God. These all constituted 
the chaff that was purged out and burned up by the un- 
quenchable wrath of God. The truths that were pleasing 
to God and that were eternal were brought over by Jesus 
Christ in the kingdom of God. He purged and purified 
the law from all human additions and obeyed the undefiled 
law of God before he presented it to his Father as fulfilled 
and to be taken out of the way, nailing it to his cross. 
"Unquenchable fire" declares God's wrath at adding to his 
order. The laws and institutions given through Christ, 
while being operated by man, will be contaminated by his 
touch and defiled by his additions, as was the law of Moses. 
This church will undergo the purifying process before it is 
given up to the Father. The "wood, hay, stubble" of man's 
additions will be burned up, and the "gold, silver, pre- 
cious stones" will remain — proved — "yet so as by fire." 
(1 Cor. 3: 11-15.) Of the same purport is 1 Cor. 15: 24- 
28 : "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up 
the kingdom to God, even the Father ; when he shall have 
put down all rule and all authority and power. For he 
must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. 
. . . And when all things shall be subdued unto him, 
then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that 
put all things under him, that God may be all in all." 
Again, Jesus said: "Every plant, which my heavenly Fa- 



228 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ther hath not planted, shall be rooted up." (Matt. 15: 13.) 
God's wrath at changing his appointments and order is un- 
appeasable. 

FASTING, CHRISTIANS. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate 
what you understand the Bible to teach on Christians fasting. 

I think the Scriptures teach very plainly that it is the 
duty of Christians to fast. The Savior, in the Sermon on 
the Mount, gives directions for giving alms (Matt. 6: 1-4), 
for praying (verses 5-15), and for fasting (verses 16-18). 
The three duties are treated here exactly alike, as though 
they are equally binding. He does not here command ei- 
ther one of them, but assumes that they will all be observed 
by his disciples, and gives direction as to how they are to 
be observed. The disciples of John came to Jesus and 
asked : "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but thy dis- 
ciples fast not? And Jesus said unto them, Can the chil- 
dren of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom 
is with them? but the days will come, when the bridegroom 
shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." (Matt. 
9: 14, 15.) While Jesus was with them to instruct and 
guide them, the occasions for fasting did not present them- 
selves ; but when he should be taken from them, they would 
fast. They would be tried and tempted and feel their need 
of spiritual help; then they would fast. Paul (1 Cor. 7: 
5) tells the husband and wife that they may by agreement 
refrain from the sensual gratification for a time, that they 
may give themselves to prayer and fasting. Jesus told 
his disciples they could not cast out a demon because of 
unbelief, and added: "This kind goeth not out but by 
prayer and fasting" (Matt. 17: 21) — that is, their faith 
might be strengthened by prayer and fasting, so they would 
have spiritual power to cast out demons. While the power 
they gained through increase of faith was miraculous, our 
faith may be increased by prayer and fasting, so our spir- 
ituality will be increased. These scriptures give no spe- 
cific time for fasting, yet they show that Christians should 
fast when tried and tempted, when affliction and sorrow 
come upon them, when they grow cold and lukewarm in the 
service of God, when the flesh gains the ascendency and 
they become forgetful of their duties to God and indifferent 
to their spiritual condition or that of the world. When 
they feel these states begin to approach, fasting and prayer 
will help them much. When trouble, lukewarmness, and sin 
come upon a church, they should fast and pray, that deliver- 
ance may come through an increase of faith and devotion. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 229 

But fasting, whether of one or more, should never be done 
with ostentation or display; it should be done quietly, as a 
service rendered to God, not to be seen of men. 

FASTING AND PRAYER. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Luke 5: 33-35: 
"And they said unto him, Why do the disciples of John fast often, 
and make prayers, and likewise the disciples of the Pharisees; but 
thine eat and drink? And he said unto them, Can ye make the chil- 
dren of the bridechamber fast, while the bridegroom is with them? 
But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken away 
from them, and then shall they fast in those days." Do you con- 
strue this passage into a command to us to fast? And if not, do we 
find any passage in the New Testament which so commands? I 
think "the children of the bridechamber" refers to the apostles, and 
that "those days" refers to the time elapsing between the crucifixion 
and resurrection. 

The "children of the bridechamber" are clearly indicated 
to be the disciples. The disciples of John fast ; your disci- 
ples fast not. He, in explaining why his disciples fasted 
not, said that the children of the bridechamber fast not 
while the bridegroom is with them. The disciples (includ- 
ing apostles) were the children of the bridechamber. While 
Jesus was with them, they would not fast ; but when he was 
taken away, they would fast. We know of no reason for 
limiting "those days" to the time between the crucifixion 
and resurrection. Indeed, we do not think it probable that 
the disciples (including the apostles) sufficiently realized 
the truth to fast during this time. We think it refers 
more specifically to the time after the ascension of Christ. 
This may not be a command to fast, but it is a recognition 
of the truth that the disciples of Christ would fast. He 
fasted; and if it was necessary as a disciplinary measure 
that his disciples should fast, why not other disciples? 
They were commanded: "Teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." The Savior, 
in the Sermon upon the Mount, puts prayer, giving of alms, 
and fasting upon the same footing. Neither is specifically 
commanded, but we are told in what manner each must be 
attended to. It is taken for granted that Christians will do 
all three of them. The command to pray is more an ex- 
hortation than a specific or statutory command. Chris- 
tian men and women ought to pray or fast and pray when 
in trouble, in difficulty, when tempted to do wrong, when 
the flesh is powerful in its passions or lusts, when we lack 
spirituality and devotionality. It is a means of attaining 
spiritual grace and strength. D. L. 



230 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

FASTING AND AGREEING WITH ONE'S ADVERSARY. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer a few questions 
for me and all who are interested. In Matt. 9: 15 the latter part of 
the verse reads thus: "But the days will come, when the bridegroom 
shall be taken from them, and then shall they fast." Does it mean 
that all Christ's disciples should fast? If so, when should we fast? 

Also Matt. 5: 25: "Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles 
thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver 
thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou 
be cast into prison." Does it mean in a property dispute the Chris- 
tian should give up to the worldly man without going to law? Some 
say it means in a talk of religion the Christian should agree with the 
sinner rather than enter an argument. Not being satisfied with that 
version, please tell me what it does mean. 

The precept certainly was to the disciples of Christ to 
fast. The object of fasting was to give spiritual strength 
in times of weakness, temptation, and trial. It even aided 
those miraculously endowed. 'This kind [of spirits] go- 
eth not out but by prayer and fasting." The disciples were 
to fast when the bridegroom (the Savior) was taken from 
them. When they felt in need of help, when they were 
tempted with sin and tried by persecution, when they found 
it difficult to do their duty as Christians, they fasted to 
gain strength, spiritual strength, to enable them to with- 
stand the wrong and to do faithfully the right. 

Much light can be gained from the Old Testament on the 
subject of fasting. In Judg. 20 we have a striking example. 
War was between Israel and Benjamin. Israel asked of 
God if they should go up against Benjamin; God replied 
that they must. They went up, but were defeated with 
great slaughter. They asked him the next day: "Shall we 
go up again?" The reply was: "Go up." They went up 
again, and again were defeated with a very great slaughter. 
It was evident God was displeased with them and was send- 
ing them up to be punished. Verse 26 : "Then all the chil- 
dren of Israel, and all the people, went up, and came unto 
the house of God, and wept, and sat there before the Lord, 
and fasted that day until even, and offered burnt offerings 
and peace offerings before the Lord." And they asked : 
"Shall we go up again against Benjamin?" God answered : 
"You must go, and I will deliver them into thine hand." 

When they humbled themselves with prayer, fasting, and 
offerings, God blessed them. The Israelites forgot God 
and took to themselves false gods. Samuel reproved them 
for their sins, and the Israelites gathered themselves to- 
gether to Mizpeh and drew water and poured it out before 
the Lord, and fasted on that day, and said there, "We have 
sinned against the Lord ;" and the Lord delivered them. 

Again, Saul and his sons were all slain and the Israelites 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 231 

defeated on account of their sins. It is said: "They took 
their bones [those of Saul and his sons], and buried them 
under a tree at Jabesh, and fasted seven days." (1 Sam. 
31 : 13 ; see also 2 Sam. 1 : 12.) 

God pronounced a curse upon Ahab and his family. 
"And it came to pass, when Ahab heard those words, that 
he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and 
fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly." (1 Kings 
21: 27.) Because of this God did not let the curse fall 
upon him in his day. (See also Ezra 8: 23; Neh. 1:4.) 

When David had been brought to realize his sin in taking 
Uriah's wife and the child was brought to death, he "be- 
sought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, 
and lay all night upon the earth." 

In seasons of sorrow and distress for sin, in temptation 
and trial, when we are deeply and earnestly seeking help 
from God, we should come and with our prayers fast. 

The only way to learn the truth concerning fasting, its 
benefit to the child of God, is to study it in the types God 
has given in the Old Testament for our instruction, together 
with the precepts found in the New Testament. 

A Christian cannot agree with a sinner who argues from 
a sinner's standpoint without making a hypocrite of him- 
self and surrendering the truth. We are commanded to 
contend earnestly for the truth. It meant certainly per- 
sonal difficulties and strifes of every kind. Christians are 
not to permit or cherish these. D. L. 

"FELLOWS," WHO "HIS," ETC. 

Jesus Christ was anointed with "the oil of gladness" above his fel- 
lows. Who were his fellows? In the parable of the unjust steward, 
why was the account of the first cut down fifty cents and the second 
cut only twenty cents? And what is the meaning of the latter part 
of this parable, where it says: "Make to yourselves friends of the 
mammon of unrighteousness?" 

Regarding the first question, we suppose the fellows 
spoken of were the angels, as in the passage Paul was con- 
trasting Christ and the angels and showing Christ's supe- 
riority over the angels. About the second question, we 
know nothing. As to the third, we understand the mean- 
ing to be about this : So use the mammon of unrighteous- 
ness — money and property — that you will make God and 
his Son your friends, so that when you die they may receive 
you into eternal mansions (heaven). "The earth is the 
Lord's, and the fullness thereof;" and the Lord's people 
must use what comes into their hands in such a way as to 
honor God, make him their friend, and all will be well. 

E. G. S. 



232 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

FELLOWSHIP, HAND OF. 

Please state through the Gospel Advocate if it is right to extend 
the right hand of Christian fellowship to members when they join 
the church and are baptized. 

There is no example of "this being done in the Scriptures. 
It is no part of the order for receiving members into the 
church of God. Evil has grown out of it by not sufficiently 
guarding the matter. People sometimes think this places 
them in the congregation ; and if they do not receive it, they 
think they are not in the church. This is the evil. Yet 
there is such a thing as the right hand of fellowship recog- 
nized in the Scriptures. It was given to Paul and Barna- 
bas at Antioch, when they went to the Gentiles, as an ap- 
proval of their work and the pledge of fellowship in the 
work. This is all it means. I could do this certainly to a 
new member just starting in the service of the Lord. But 
it would not be to make him a member of the church. 
While it is not obligatory, if the meaning of it were kept 
before the people, it certainly would be commendable to 
give the hand of fellowship as an approval and encourage- 
ment in the new life on which they have started. Yet, be- 
cause evil frequently grows out of it, the church of which 
I am a member has ceased to do it. D. L. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is there any scripture making it the duty of 
brethren moving from one congregation to another to formally re- 
ceive the hand of fellowship from the congregation to which they are 
moving before they can be regarded as members of the same and be 
entitled to the rights and privileges of the church as such? 

There is no such requirement in the Bible; and while I 
would not refuse it, with proper explanations, when it was 
customary, evil grows out of the practice when it is re- 
garded as essential to fellowship or membership in a 
church. When a person is in Christ, he is a member of the 
body of Christ wherever he goes and entitled to the privi- 
leges of the body. The fact that a man participates in 
any of the worship or privileges of the church is a decla- 
ration of his membership and identifies him with that con- 
gregation so long as he stays with them. The hand of fel- 
lowship was given to persons leaving a church on a mis- 
sion approved by the church, without any laws regulating 
the practice, so far as known. The circumstances indi- 
cate it was given as an act pledging fellowship in the work 
to which they were going. (Gal. 2: 9.) This is the only 
time it is mentioned in the Bible. As such, it might be 
given as a welcome and encouragement to persons coming 
to or leaving a church ; but as a condition of fellowship in 
a church, it is wrong. But there is looseness about church 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 233 

membership that is hurtful that ought to be guarded 
against. I know preachers living in Nashville that never 
affiliate with any church, so far as I can learn, but go out 
to preach. Many members follow the same practice and 
become careless in their attendance upon worship and in all 
their Christian duties. 

Brother Sewell: Is it right to give the right hand of fellowship 
to new additions to the church? Some here think it is right and 
some do not. As we find no scripture on the subject, we would like 
to hear from you, as we want to know what is right. 

The right hand of fellowship, as usually given, is with- 
out either precept or example in the New Testament ; and, 
besides, it causes contention and disagreement among breth- 
ren. These are reasons enough to make it perfectly safe 
to let it alone. While it is certainly very pleasant to those 
that have been accustomed to engage in it, it should be no 
cross to leave off anything not specifically authorized or 
involved in carrying out things that are commanded. It 
used to be as common among the churches as baptism, but 
we know of no churches that practice it now in this section 
of country. 

FELLOWSHIP, SHALL THEY WITHDRAW? 

If an elder of a congregation and four or five other members 
withdraw and organize themselves into a congregation in a Baptist 
meetinghouse about two miles distant from the meetinghouse of the 
congregation they are leaving, without obtaining the consent of the 
congregation, but against the protests of the other elder and some of 
the other members, and then come and ask to be released from the 
old congregation, stating that they thought they had a right to thus 
organize, and are not leaving because of any irregularity in the con- 
gregation, and nearly all the members leaving live about as near the 
meetinghouse of the congregation they are leaving as they do to the 
one they are going to, what course should be pursued toward them 
by the congregation they are leaving? The prospect for building up 
a good congregation where they have organized is not very flattering, 
the said elder having preached once per month for a year or so with 
no additions by primary obedience. 

We know of no law governing such matters, no law lim- 
iting congregations. Such courses should be pursued only 
with the consent of all ; but if they cannot agree in such 
matters and there are no scriptural grounds for disfellow- 
ship, we know of no way except, like Paul and Barnabas, to 
separate, and in time experience may show the folly of the 
course taken. That is generally a dear school, but we 
know of no other way of settling such troubles. The habit 
frequently indulged in of excluding brethren when they 
are loyal to Christ, but differ in judgment in matters of this 
kind, brings all church discipline into ridicule. These 



234 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

brethren ought to respect the judgment and feelings of the 
others, and it is a folly to organize so many little congre- 
gations ; but I know of no law regulating such matters. 

FESTIVALS AND MAJORITY RULE, ETC. 

Please answer through the Gospel Advocate what you understand 
to be the duty of members who do not favor church festivals in the 
church where the majority overrules and brings them in; also if a 
woman should be an officer of the church. 

A church in which majorities rule is not a church of 
Christ. In his church his law rules, and the elders see 
that it is enforced. While one violation of a law does not 
unchristianize a man or church, if it is repented of, yet a 
persistent adoption of another law than the word of God 
does place the church or individual out of Christ. The 
thought of appealing to the flesh to raise money for the 
Lord is grossly violative of his law and insulting to God. 
He desires freewill gifts from faithful hearts. Women 
cannot be rulers in the church of God. So members ought 
to use their influence to teach them better, correct the 
wrongs; and if they find them determined to follow an- 
other law than the will of God, they should meet and wor- 
ship free from these evil influences. D. L. 

"FILLED ALL THE HOUSE," WHAT, ON PENTECOST? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Acts 2 we read as follows: 
"And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with 
one accord in one place. And suddenly there came a sound from 
heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where 
they were sitting." Now, the question is: What was it that filled 
all the house — the sound or the Spirit, or both Spirit and sound; and 
did the Spirit fill any but the apostles out of the one hundred and 
twenty disciples? 

According to the construction of the passage above, the 
pronoun it would naturally refer to the word sound as its 
antecedent, and would indicate that the sound filled the 
house. But it is evident that the Holy Spirit himself 
came, at the same time, and that the Spirit was present in 
the room at the same instant, for the apostles were imme- 
diately filled with the Spirit and began speaking as the 
Spirit gave them utterance ; so that the sound only indicated 
the presence of the Holy Spirit. The presence of the Holy 
Spirit in that room was indicated by the sound, by the ap- 
pearance of the tongues, and by the filling of the apostles 
with the Spirit and their speaking as he gave them utterance. 
The meaning of the passage amounts to about the same as 
if the passage had said that the Spirit filled the house. 
Only the apostles were filled with the Spirit. None but 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 235 

they were present that day, as is indicated by the connec- 
tion. The passage says when the day of Pentecost was 
come they were all in one place. They who? Look back 
to the last word in the first chapter, and you find it is the 
word apostles. This word is the antecedent of the word 
they in the first part of the second chapter. This shows 
that only the apostles were present; and hence they only 
were filled with the Holy Spirit. E. G. S. 

FIRE, THE MAN SAVED BY. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please give me your 
views in the Gospel Advocate on 1 Cor. 3: 14, 15. 

The verses are : "If any man's work abide which he hath 
built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's 
work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself 
shall be saved ; yet so as by fire." Paul is here speaking of 
the material built into the church of God upon the one foun- 
dation, which is Jesus Christ. The material built upon 
this foundation by a proclaimer of the word may be good 
or may be bad, generally a mixture — some good, some bad. 
Some will turn out to be gold, silver, precious stones; 
while others turn out to be wood, hay, and stubble. When 
a man labors and builds wood, hay, and stubble upon the 
foundation, all such will turn back to the world again, will 
yield to the temptations that surround them, and thus be 
overcome by the fiery trials that come upon them; and in 
such cases the preacher loses his labor. But this will not 
interfere with his own personal salvation, if he will be 
faithful unto death. And, on the other hand, those of his 
converts that turn out to be as the gold, silver, and precious 
stones, by continuing to live in the service of God, by hold- 
ing out faithfully until death, will be saved eternally in 
heaven, and this will be as a reward to him. He can re- 
joice through all eternity that he has been a humble instru- 
ment in the hands of God in causing some to go to heaven 
and enjoy its bliss forever. But every man is admonished 
to take heed how he builds thereon. Nothing should be 
used but purely gospel means to convert sinners. Human 
wisdom in every shape and form should be left entirely out 
and nothing but the pure word of God presented. No un- 
due excitement by outside means should be brought to bear 
so as to cause men to act merely from that, but the gospel 
in its own purity should be relied upon. And when people 
are in this way induced to become Christians, they are very 
likely to hold out. Whenever other means are resorted 
to by the preacher, the same kind of influences will have to 
be kept up through life, or the converts will become dissat- 



236 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

isfied and fall away ; but when only gospel means are used, 
the converts will be contented to live by the gospel and be 
content to receive the gospel's reward at the end of life. 

E. G. S. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain in the columns of the Gospel 
Advocate the meaning of 1 Cor. 3: 11-15. 

Verse 10 means that Paul had taught that Jesus is the 
Christ, is the Son of God, as the only foundation on which 
persons can be builded into the temple, or church, of God. 
He had first preached that truth in Corinth, others came 
after him to build upon the foundation he had laid, and 
(verse 11) he warns them to be careful as to how they 
build on this foundation, for there is no other foundation 
than this can be laid. He says (verse 12) in building on this 
foundation it may be done with gold, silver, precious stones, 
or with wood, hay, stubble, as the material; but he says 
(verse 13) every man's work will be tried with fire, and so 
its character will be revealed or made known. If tried by 
fire, the wood, hay, stubble will be burned up, so must rep- 
resent the false teachings; the gold, silver, and precious 
stones are purged of their dross by passing through the fire. 
This must, then, represent the teaching of God's word. If 
the teaching he does stands the test, he will be rewarded 
for it (verse 14) ; if it does not stand the test of fire, but is 
burned up, then he will suffer loss ; but while he suffers loss, 
he will be saved, "so as by fire" (verse 15). This last 
clause gives the only trouble — that is, his work is destroyed, 
he suffers loss ; yet he is saved, "so as by fire." It seems to 
me here is a provision that a man teaching a congregation 
may possibly do some false teaching, yet, doing it thinking 
he is teaching the truth, may himself be saved, while the 
teaching is destroyed. When this test by fire is made has 
been a question of some doubt. Some think it was made 
by the persecutions in this world ; others, that it applies to 
the final judgment of God. It likely applies to both. This 
teaching of Paul was clearly intended to warn the church 
he planted and taught and among whom he had determined 
to know nothing but Christ, and him crucified, against 
teachers who would come in and teach the commandments 
of men, that would corrupt and defile the temple of God. 
Some think the wood, hay, stubble brought in are the un- 
worthy persons brought into the church; but no teacher is 
responsible for this if he declares the whole counsel of God. 
This would free him from the blood of all men. While there 
is difficulty about the clause mentioned, I can reach no 
other conclusion from the context. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 237 

FIRE, THE, OF MATT. 3: 11, 12, ETC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please explain Matt. 3: 
11, 12. The question which troubles me is the fire spoken of in these 
verses. Some of our brethren contend that it all means hell fire. I 
think the unquenchable fire does refer to hell fire. I want to know 
if they did not receive that promise on the day of Pentecost. Acts 
2: 3 reads: "And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as 
of fire, and it sat upon each of them." You will also please explain 
who Heli was. From the reading of Matt. 1: 16, Jacob was Joseph's 
father, the husband of Mary. Luke 3: 23 reads: "Joseph, which was 
the son of Heli." 

It is very evident that the fire spoken of in this passage 
refers to hell fire — the future punishment of the wicked. 
The passage declares, "He shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire" — properly, in the Holy Spirit and in 
fire. There is no appearance of a figure about this, but a 
positive representation of an overwhelming in fire. The 
passage in Acts 2, where the apostles were baptized in the 
Spirit, says: "And there appeared unto them cloven 
tongues, like as of fire." The appearance of these cloven 
tongues was like fire, but not fire. Declaring it to be like 
fire is equivalent to saying that it was not fire. Had it 
been fire, the divine record would doubtless have said so. 
In Matt. 3 it is fire direct, and no likeness about it; but in 
Acts 2 it is like fire, and yet not fire. The "unquenchable 
fire" spoken of in Matt. 3 is evidently the fire in which the 
baptism was to be performed. John was speaking to a 
mixed multitude, and the meaning clearly is that some of 
them would be baptized in the Spirit, as were the apostles 
on the day of Pentecost and the household of Cornelius 
some seven years afterwards, and that some would be bap- 
tized in the fire of eternal ruin. It was Christ that baptized 
the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and it is Christ that 
will say at the judgment: "Depart from me, ye cursed, 
into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
(Matt. 25: 41.) 

We would not be justifiable in speaking positively as to 
who Heli was ; but a very common solution is that Heli was 
the father of Mary, the mother of Jesus. And this changes 
the order of the parenthesis in Luke 3, leaving out the 
words which were not in the Greek, so as to make Jesus in- 
stead of Joseph the son of Heli. This would make Heli 
the grandfather of Christ, and in Scripture language the 
distinction between father and grandfather is not always 
made. 

There are other solutions given of this passage, but our 
information on these genealogies is so imperfect at this 
remote period that it is not a very easy matter for us to 



238 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

determine the matter with certainty; and a failure to un- 
derstand the matter is not owing to inaccuracies in the 
word of God, but to our want of information regarding the 
ancient records of genealogies. 

FIRE, THE BAPTISM OF. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain fire baptism. (Matt. 3: 11; 
Luke 3: 16.) 

On February 3 of this year we published the following: 
"To baptize in water is to overwhelm in water; to baptize 
in the Spirit is to overwhelm in the Spirit, to bring under 
the control of the Spirit ; to baptize in suffering is to over- 
whelm in suffering. These are the scriptural uses of the 
term baptize. Analogy and the meaning of the word 
would say baptism in fire is to overwhelm in fire; to con- 
sume and destroy in fire. The connection in which the ex- 
pression is used also requires this meaning. 'But when he 
saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his bap- 
tism, he said unto them, generation of vipers, who hath 
warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth 
therefore fruits meet for repentance: and think not to say 
within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I 
say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up 
children unto Abraham. And now also the ax is laid unto 
the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth 
not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he 
that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am 
not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy 
Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in his hand, and he will 
thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the 
garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable 
fire/ (Matt. 3: 7-12.) He is speaking to the Pharisees 
and Sadducees. He calls them a 'generation of vipers.' 
He tells them to repent, not to rely on being fleshly chil- 
dren of Abraham to save them. The ax is at the root of 
the trees. Every one of the children of Abraham that does 
not bear good fruit will be cut down and cast into the fire. 
In this figure the evil are to be destroyed in fire. He gives 
another illustration of the same truth: T baptize with wa- 
ter; he that comes after me will baptize with the Holy 
Spirit and with fire.' The baptism of the Holy Spirit in 
this figure is for those of the last verse, who bring forth 
good fruit ; the baptism of fire is for those who do not bring 
forth good fruit and are cast into the fire. Then he gives 
still another illustration of the same truth : 'He will gather 
the wheat into the garner; he will destroy the chaff — the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 239 

tree that does not bear fruit, that is baptized with fire — 
with fire unquenchable/ Fire in each of these illustrations 
means one and the same thing and accomplishes the same 
result — the burning up of the wicked. The connection will 
allow no other possible meaning than this. The baptism of 
the Holy Spirit embraces all the blessings and favors of 
earth, ending in salvation in heaven of those who repent 
and bring forth fruits meet for repentance ; the baptism of 
fire embraces the destruction that would come upon the 
unbelieving Jews, the 'generation of vipers,' and all the 
wicked, ending in their eternal ruin in hell. These are 
three statements and illustrations of the same truth: the 
good will be saved, the wicked will be destroyed in fire." 

FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK, KEEPING. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: What is the teaching of the New 
Testament on the subject of keeping the first day of the week? How 
are we required to observe it? In our weekly meeting we have or- 
ganized a Bible class in lieu of a Sunday school, and this is a ques- 
tion which we are to look up. Refer us to the scripture bearing on 
this. We have had Robert Lee Harris with us urging his doctrine of 
a second blessing. He claims that the Holy Ghost was given on Pen- 
tecost to confer a second blessing, and that the tongues as of fire was 
not present at the house of Cornelius as at Pentecost, and claims that 
the blessing is received in a moment in answer to earnest beseeching. 
On being asked for an example of these things in our day, he refers 
to some woman in some Northern State, who preached in the German 
language, who had never studied it a single day. 

We do not know the difference between a Bible class and 
a Sunday school, if the Bible class meets on Sunday. Nei- 
ther the word Bible nor class is found in the Bible. Bible 
is not a Bible name; it is given by man. If you are going 
to stick to Scripture names for things the Scriptures have 
not named, you must repudiate both Bible and class. There 
is fust the same authority for Sunday that there is for 
Bible. School is a Bible term applied to those who come 
together for study. If the use of terms in the Bible be the 
test, there is more authority for Sunday school than for 
Bible class. But there is no greater enemy of a principle 
than he who insists on applying it where it is not applica- 
ble. The Holy Spirit has nowhere given names to the 
different meetings for the study of God's word. For men 
to try to fix a name of their own as authoritative is to as- 
sume Godlike authority and to legislate where he has not 
legislated. The great public who has named these meet- 
ings for Bible study on Sunday Sunday schools has as much 
right to name them as any one else, because God has not 
named them. To give Bible names to Bible things is all 
right where the Bible thing has a Bible name, but to force 



240 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

a human name as a sacred and Bible name is to violate the 
principle. 

The teaching of the Bible is that Christ was raised from 
the dead on the first day of the week. He met with his 
disciples on three succeeding first days of the week after 
his resurrection, and at no other time during the period. 
I do not recall any evidence that Christ met with his disci- 
ples after his resurrection at any time, save on the first 
day, or Sunday. The Holy Spirit descended on Pentecost, 
the first day of the week. The disciples met together on the 
first day of the week under apostolic teaching. (Acts 20 : 
7.) In 1 Cor. 16: 2 they are told to lay by them in store 
on the first day of the week. Heb. 10: 25 says: "Not for- 
saking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner 
of some is." The assembly on the first day of the week to 
engage in the apostles' doctrine, fellowship, and breaking 
of bread is clearly set forth. It is the only regular service 
for which we have precept or example in the New Testa- 
ment. The admonition not to forsake the assembling to- 
gether must, then, refer to this assembly for these purposes. 
To study the apostolic teaching, break bread, engage in the 
fellowship and prayer, are the services in these meetings. 

God had plainly told under the Jewish law that both man 
and beast needed one day of rest out of seven. This re- 
mains true so long as the nature and needs of man and 
beast remain as they are. He showed plainly, too, that for 
man to worship God, a day must be set apart for that serv- 
ice. If he attended to secular business on that day, he 
would neglect the worship of the Lord. So long as man's 
nature is unchanged this is true. Observation now will 
soon satisfy any man that he who attempts to attend to 
worship and secular business on the same day will crowd 
the worship out. God knew what was in man when he pro- 
vided for him, and all attempts to change will show man a 
fool. 

It is right for Christians, by becoming more and more 
faithful, to seek for second and third and fourth blessings, 
and God is always willing to bestow blessings as we are 
fitted to receive and use them; but for a man to claim the 
bestowal of gifts like to those on Pentecost is to show he is 
beyond learning from the Bible. And for a man to claim 
in this world that he has passed the stage that it is possible 
for him to sin is to advertise himself guilty of the pre- 
sumptuous sin. Christ is the only sinless being that ever 
lived on earth. He was continually tempted. For a man 
to claim freedom from sin is to claim equality with Jesus 
Christ. When he claims freedom from temptation, he 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 241 

claims superiority to Christ. Such claims are all presump- 
tuous and blasphemous in their character. I doubt if any 
man ever lived a day without sins of omission or commis- 
sion. D. L. 

FIRST DAY, MEETING ON. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I drop these lines to you for in- 
struction upon Christians meeting upon the first day of each and 
every week to break bread. Will you please explain the subject fully 
in the Gospel Advocate and strengthen your brethren in Christ? The 
reason why I write to you is this: Some of the brethren at this place 
seem to think that it is not necessary to meet on the first day of every 
week to take the Lord's Supper. They think if they do right with 
their fellow man in all their dealings, it will not matter whether they 
take the Lord's Supper more than once in life or not; that God will 
receive them into his everlasting kingdom. I think we should do all 
that God has commanded us through Christ and his apostles in order 
to be saved. 

In the first place, we are told of the first Christians at 
Jerusalem that "they continued steadfastly in the apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in 
prayers." (Acts 2: 42.) These continued steadfastly in 
breaking bread, and this breaking of bread was done in 
accordance with the teaching of the apostles. Therefore 
the apostles taught the first Christians to break bread. 
This breaking of bread was evidently the Lord's Supper, 
as it was not necessary to teach anything with reference 
to the partaking of ordinary meals; but it was necessary 
that the apostles should teach the breaking of the loaf, as 
^hey would not have known that it was necessary to do so. 
And as to the time of partaking the Supper, we are told in 
Acts 20 that they came together on the first day of the 
week for that purpose; and the language is such as to im- 
port that they were in the habit of meeting the first day of 
every week. It expresses the idea of regular habit or cus- 
tom. In 1 Cor. 16 we also have similar language, indi- 
cating a regular custom of meeting on the first day of the 
week, which was evidently to break bread. Then Paul 
(Heb. 10: 25) says: "Not forsaking the assembling of our- 
selves together, as the manner of some is." The assembling 
spoken of here is the assembling on the first day of the 
week to break bread, as that is the only assembling required 
in the new institution. Hence here is a positive require- 
ment to meet on the first day of the week, the design of 
which, according to other passages, was to break bread. 
To such as need authority for meeting on the first day of 
every week to break bread this is sufficient; but with such 
as love the Savior and love to feast upon the spiritual food 
that he has ordained for our spiritual well-being, no au- 



242 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

thority is needed; only the opportunity is needed to bring 
all such together on the first day of every week. They will 
delight in the privilege. They will not wait for authority 
to be introduced, but will hasten to go, hungering and 
thirsting after righteousness. A hungry child never waits 
for authority to be found to go to its father's table at home ; 
it only waits for the opportunity, not for authority. The 
privilege is all that is needed in that case. So it ought to be 
with the children of God about going to the Lord's table on 
the first day of every week. Whenever authority has to be 
shown to the children of God to induce them to come to- 
gether on the first day of every week to sit around their 
Father's table, they are a long way behind their privileges 
and are in danger of losing all interest in the cause of God. 
Let all, therefore, learn to get hungry for the Lord's Sup- 
per, and they will never stop to ask for a command before 
they go, but will gladly go. E. G. S. 

FIRST DAY, MUST WE KEEP ALL OF THE? 

Is Heb. 10: 25 a commandment? If so, please explain through 
the paper; if not, explain and give scripture. Is it obligatory for 
us to keep the first day of the week, or should we work on that day 
till dinner and then go to the first-day meeting? We all do not agree 
here on this point, and I want information and scripture on this line. 
I am twenty-one years old, and I am striving to know the right way. 

That we should not forsake "the assembling of ourselves 
together" is an expression of God's will concerning these 
Hebrew Christians. The assembling of themselves to- 
gether was a part of the divine order. To forsake it was a 
step back to Judaism and apostasy. Hence he immediately 
adds: "For if we sin willfully after that we have received 
the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sac- 
rifice for sins, but a certain fearful looking for of judg- 
ment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adver- 
saries." (Heb. 10: 26, 27.) Here forsaking the assem- 
bly was a step toward turning back from Christ to Judaism. 
But was it a greater sin to turn back from Christ to Juda- 
ism than to turn back now to ungodliness and sin? The 
assembly of Christians is essential to Christian living. 

Living near a city where there are many calls for work 
on the first day of the week, such as the livery business, 
huckstering, dairying, etc., I see many efforts of persons 
to combine work with the worship on the same day. I 
have never yet seen an example of a man working part of 
the day from choice, and not from necessity, that he did not 
soon lose interest in the assembly. I have very seldom seen 
men engage in regular and necessary work that they did 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 243 

not lose interest in the assembling and in the church of 
Jesus Christ. 

I have frequently seen men zealous and earnest in the 
service of God, attentive and faithful to the weekly meet- 
ing, engage in the livery business, the dairy business, or in 
selling vegetables, and feel it necessary to prepare them 
Sunday afternoon for the market Monday morning; and 
it is the rarest case imaginable that they do not soon give up 
all meeting and Christianity itself. Even physicians who 
give the day to practice are liable to fall away. 

I believe God has made it necessary that men give the 
first day of the week to his service, free from business care 
and toil. If they do not, they will cease to serve him. 

D. L. 

FIRST DAY, WHEN DOES IT BEGIN? 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Do you understand "the first day of the 
week" (Acts 20: 7) to begin after sunset or at midnight? I remem- 
ber to have preached at a place on what we call "Sunday night." 
We had the emblems and broke bread, thinking we were following 
the ancient order. Recently I find such men as Brethren McGarvey 
and Harding inclined to the position that the first day of the week 
began after sunset on "what we call Saturday." (2) What bread 
was eaten? (Verse 11.) 

(1) There is nothing more certain than that the divi- 
sion of time which made the day begin at six P.M. was not 
continued in New Testament times, and especially among 
the Gentile nations. The third hour was nine o'clock, the 
sixth hour was twelve, and the ninth hour was three P.M. 
This may have been only the divisions for the day, not in- 
cluding the night. My opinion is that the Savior and the 
apostles adopted the division of the people among whom 
they lived. Smith's Bible Dictionary says: "The Baby- 
lonians reckoned the day from sunrise to sunrise ; the Um- 
brians, from noon to noon ; the Romans, from midnight to 
midnight; the Athenians, from sunset to sunset." The 
Jews early adopted the last, but it is thought after the cap- 
tivity they held to the Babylonian division, or from sun- 
rise to sunrise. This seems to me to be the division rec- 
ognized in the New Testament. "In the end of the Sab- 
bath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, 
came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sep- 
ulcher." (Matt. 28: 1.) "And when the Sabbath was 
past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and 
Salome, had brought sweet spices, that they might come 
and anoint him. And very early in the morning the first 
day of the week, they came unto the sepulcher at the rising 



244 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of the sun." (Mark 16 : 1, 2.) These passages fix the end 
of the Sabbath at sunrise. 

(2) I think this eating was an ordinary meal taken after 
long talking. I think they had come together and partaken 
of the Lord's Supper. Afterwards he spent the time till 
after midnight in talking to them, had grown hungry; and 
when the talk was interrupted by the fall of the young man, 
Paul took refreshment before beginning again. Only Paul 
is said to have taken bread and eaten at this time. 

"FIRST" AND "LAST." 

Brother Lipscomb: What is the meaning of the expression: "The 
first shall be last, and the last shall be first?" 

It means the young man with the worst opportunities 
will make the greatest success in life; the one who seems 
to have the best start will fail. The Jews in the Savior's 
time had the best opportunities from having long possessed 
the knowledge of God and of his will, but they failed ; and 
the Gentiles — who, seemingly, had a worse start — more 
readily received Christ than the Jews. When God comes 
to reward them, he will give to the Gentiles, who, with disad- 
vantages, received Christ; he will severely condemn the 
Jews, who, with their advantages, rejected him. 

"FLESH," IN JOHN 6: 53. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: "Except ye eat the flesh of the 
Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you." (John 
6: 53.) If the above does not refer to eating the Lord's Supper, 
what does it refer to? 

We have no doubt but that the eating of the Lord's Sup- 
per is embraced in this passage, but we do not think that 
it is all that is embraced in it. The language is figurative 
any way that we may take it. If we apply it to the Lord's 
Supper, that is a figure; for we do not literally eat of the 
flesh and drink of the blood of the Son of God. We eat 
and drink the emblems of the body and blood of Jesus in the 
Lord's Supper, but not the real body and blood. In the 
same passage Jesus goes on to say : "Whoso eateth my flesh, 
and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise 
him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and 
my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and 
drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." In these 
verses we are taught that eating the flesh and drinking the 
blood of Jesus secures eternal life. Now, we are plainly 
taught that no one requirement of Christianity alone will 
take people to heaven; it takes a combination of all the 
Lord requires. People have to become Christians before 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 245 

they have any right to eat of the Lord's Supper at all ; and 
if after they do become Christians they turn back to the 
world and disregard the practical requirements of the Lord, 
eating the Lord's Supper will still fail to lead such to eter- 
nal life. Men must become Christians and continue to live 
Christians if they would be benefited by eating the Lord's 
Supper. We think, therefore, that Jesus meant to embrace 
all the requirements of the plan of salvation that he came 
to establish when he spoke of eating his flesh and drinking 
his blood, for nothing less than this gives to any man an 
assurance of heaven. 

We have an example of the same principle of illustration 
in John 4, where Christ was talking to the woman of Sa- 
maria. He said to her: "But whosoever drinketh of the 
water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the wa- 
ter that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water 
springing up into everlasting life." In this the Savior il- 
lustrates the requirements and blessings of the Christian 
religion by water. When man drinks literal water, it sat- 
isfies his thirst and sustains mortal life, so far as the mat- 
ter of thirst is concerned. So when a man embraces the 
gospel and carries out all its divine requisitions, his thirst 
for eternal life will be satisfied — he will reach the object of 
his desire. So with the figure of eating. When a man 
eats and drinks the ordinary provisions of this life, it per- 
petuates his mortal life and gives him strength to accom- 
plish the ends of life. Just so when a man partakes of the 
spiritual food that is afforded to the world through the 
death and sufferings of the Son of God, through his church, 
his kingdom, it prepares him for the enjoyment of eternal 
life. Eating the bread and drinking the wine is one impor- 
tant means of spiritual growth to the Christian, and no 
child of God can claim in the full sense of these words that 
he eats and drinks the body and blood of the Son of God 
who does not regularly partake of the Lord's Supper. 

We are sure that many who claim to be Christians are 
imperiling their eternal interests by carelessly neglecting 
the Lord's table on the first day of the week. We have as- 
surance of eternal life only as we do all the requirements 
of the Lord to the extent of our ability. And there is 
probably no one requirement of the Christian religion that 
is more carelessly and recklessly neglected than the Lord's 
Supper on the Lord's day. We would that Christians every- 
where could be aroused to greater diligence and promptness 
in all the requirements of their Lord and Master. 

E. G. S. 



246 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

FLESH AND BLOOD, BREAD AND WINE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please give me some 
light on Matt. 26 : 26-28 : "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, 
and blessed it, -and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, 
Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, 
and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it [of course the con- 
tents]; for this is my blood of the new testament." Now, the ques- 
tion is: Jesus calls the bread my body and the wine my blood, and 
we take the wine and call them the emblems of his body and blood. 

The bread and wine are called the emblems of the body 
and blood of Christ, because the word emblem is supposed 
to express in plain language what the Savior expressed in 
a sort of figure, as when he said to the disciples: "Ye are 
the salt of the earth. ... Ye are the light of the 
world." The disciples were not salt, but their saving in- 
fluence on those around them was like the saving influence 
of salt upon meats and such things as it preserves. The 
bread and the wine represent to us the broken body and 
shed blood of Jesus; and since Catholics are pleading for 
transubstantiation — that is, that the bread is the real body 
of Christ and that the wine is his real blood — brethren have 
thought best, in order to express in plainness just what 
they understand the Savior to mean by his expressions — 
that is, to so express the matter as to avoid error on the 
subject. But we are no stickler for such expressions; we 
are perfectly willing to leave off the expression of it in that 
form if any are offended by it ; but we shall always under- 
stand that to be the meaning of the Savior's language, 
whether we express it or not. E. G. S. 

"FOOLS," WHO THEREIN "SHALL NOT ERR." 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Isa. 35: 8. Does it mean that 
a fool need not err in the plan of salvation? 

It means fools in the sense of those not wise in their own 
esteem or in the wisdom of the world. They were fools in 
the sense of 1 Cor. 1: 19-29: "For it is written, I will de- 
stroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the 
understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where 
is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not 
God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after 
that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not 
God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save 
them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the 
Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, 
unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and unto the Greeks fool- 
ishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and 
Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 247 

Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men ; and the 
weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your 
calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the 
flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but 
God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound 
the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the 
world to confound the things which are mighty ; and base 
things of the world, and things which are despised, hath 
God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to 
naught things that are: that no flesh should glory in his 
presence. " 

FOOT WASHING. 

Brother Sewell: Is it right for Christians to wash one another's 
feet? 

Yes; if one Christian is sick or in any way unable to 
wash his own feet, then it would be right for any other 
Christian who may be present to wash his feet for him. 
But it would never be right for any number of Christians 
to meet together to wash each other's feet as a church or- 
dinance. There is not one example after the church of God 
was established in which Christians ever met to wash one 
another's feet as a church ordinance, as was the Lord's 
Supper. Jesus washed the feet of the apostles at the feast 
of the passover on the night of the last passover he ever 
attended ; but there was not a word said to indicate that it 
was intended as an ordinance of the church or as in any way 
a religious service any more than any other act of Christian 
courtesy toward each other. That was the very purpose 
for which Jesus washed the disciples' feet, so far as I can 
learn from the passage, and whoever makes more than that 
out of it makes it up by human wisdom. Foot washing is 
mentioned but one time more after Jesus washed the feet 
of the apostles, and in that case it was mentioned in con- 
nection with private deeds of kindness for others. Paul, 
when speaking of the life of the kind of a widow that should 
be supported by the church, said: "Let not a widow be 
taken into the number under threescore years old, having 
been the wife of one man, well reported of for good works ; 
if she have brought up children, if she have lodged stran- 
gers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have relieved 
the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good 
work." (1 Tim. 5: 9, 10.) This is the last and the only 
other passage in the New Testament that says anything 
on the subject, and here it is mentioned as a private duty. 
Hence it is nowhere mentioned as a public church service. 



248 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Brother Lipscomb: Is foot washing a command? Does 1 Tim. 
5 : 9, 10 mean that a woman who has not washed the saints' feet shall 
not be taken into the church? 

The word number in 1 Tim. 5: 9 does not refer to the 
church, but to the number of widows supported by the 
church. Verse 3 says: "Honor widows that are widows 
indeed." Verse 4 explains this; it means those that are 
without children or kindred to help them. To honor them 
means to support them. A widow at threescore without 
kinsmen was placed on the list to be honored (supported) 
by the church. In verses 17-19 of this chapter the word 
honor is used in the same sense. "Let the elders that rule 
well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those 
who labor in word and in teaching. For the scripture saith, 
Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. 
And, The laborer is worthy of his hire." This shows the 
feeding the ox and the giving the laborer his hire was 
to honor him. Washing the saints' feet when they came 
to her house, like entertaining strangers and bringing up 
children and relieving the afflicted, was a good work for all 
Christians to follow. A widow that had followed these 
good works and was needing help must be taken into the 
number to be honored and supported. In John 13 is an ac- 
count of Jesus' washing the feet of the disciples. The con- 
text shows plainly that he did this to purify and to fit them 
to partake of the passover feast. The disciples quarreled 
about who should lead in helping each other. To reprove 
them, he did it himself. They ought to be as ready to serve 
each other as he was to serve them. The example of the 
Savior and the admonition of Paul teach that we ought to 
be ready and anxious to do the commonest and lowliest acts 
to help and aid the humblest children of God in whatever 
way they need help. He that is servant of all is greatest 
of all. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you please answer a question for me 
through the Gospel Advocate or by letter? In John 13 I find that 
after supper Jesus "riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; 
and took a towel, and girded himself," and took a basin of water 
and washed his disciples' feet. In verse 14 he says: "If I then, your 
Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one 
another's feet." Verse 15: "For I have given you an example, that 
ye should do as I have done to you." Why doesn't the Christian 
church practice washing feet now when they partake of the Supper? 

The apostles, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are 
the best interpreters of the meaning and intentions of the 
Savior's language. They observed the Lord's Supper as a 
public ordinance. (See Acts 2: 42; 20: 7; 1 Cor. 11: 20- 
24.) About this there can be no doubt. They did not so 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 249 

interpret the admonition to wash one another's feet. We 
have no account of their having a public foot washing. The 
only account we have of it is 1 Tim. 5 : 3-10 : "Honor wid- 
ows that are widows indeed. ' But if any widow have chil- 
dren or nephews, let them learn first to show piety at home, 
and to requite their parents : for that is good and accepta- 
ble before God. Now she that is a widow indeed, and des- 
olate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and 
prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is 
dead while she liveth. And these things give in charge, 
that they may be blameless. But if any provide not for his ( 
own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath de- 
nied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. Let not a 
widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, 
having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good 
works ; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged 
strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet, if she have 
relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every 
good work." Here it is placed among entertaining stran- 
gers, raising children, administering to the sick and af- 
flicted, and in engaging in all good works. These were all 
personal and private duties. The apostles interpreted it to 
mean, it should be a private and social duty to be performed 
when needed. So I think it ought to be observed now. 
The apostles did not seem to think Jesus established a new 
ordinance, but gave a new meaning to an old social custom. 
It had in the days of Abraham been the custom to give wa- 
ter to wash the feet. It was sometimes done by the serv- 
ants for the great. Jesus had told that among his disciples 
he who would be greatest of all should be servant of all. 
In this he gives an example that they should perform for 
each other the humblest services. In washing the feet, he 
who washes makes himself a servant and honors him whose 
feet he washes. We do it to be seen of men. Jesus desired 
it so done that God would see it and reward. If a humble 
brother comes to your house and needs his feet bathed, do 
it for him; if a brother has been plowing in the field and 
needs his feet bathed, do it for him. This is what Christ 
meant as interpreted by the apostles. 

Please discuss the foot-washing question in the Gospel Advocate 
thoroughly and clearly for Brother John V. Alsup and others, with 
Bible arguments and sound speech that cannot be condemned, and, 
in particular, for the benefit of W. T. Gregory; for he says that 
there has to be more Bible proof than he has seen or heard relative 
to this subject to convince him that it is not a church or public- 
worship ordinance, to be attended to when the Supper is taken. He 
thinks, moreover, that the Bible sustains him in this. 



250 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The subject of foot washing has been gone over time and 
again until we get a little tired of repeating and re-repeat- 
ing the same thing. Besides, when a man wants a hobby 
to ride, he will find it. Foot washing is as innocent a one 
as we know of. The best way, we believe, is not to discuss 
it with a hobbyist. Just tell him and all who wish to do it 
to go ahead and wash their feet as much as they desire. 
The rest of you, having no faith in it as a church ordinance, 
would sin to do it. But if you argue at all with him, ask 
him for his authority. The Savior washed his disciples' 
feet ; but where was it ever done by the church ? 

We can easily show the history of foot washing as prac- 
ticed by the Savior. The first mention of washing feet is 
Gen. 18 : 3-5. The three angels came to announce to Abra- 
ham and Sarah the promise of a child (Isaac) . Abraham 
said: "If now I have found favor in thy sight, pass not 
away, I pray thee, from thy servant: let a little water, I 
pray you, be fetched, and wash your feet, and rest your- 
selves under the tree: and I will fetch a morsel of bread, 
and comfort ye your hearts; after that ye shall pass on." 
The next is, the angels came to Lot at Sodom. He said: 
"Now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant's 
house, and tarry all night, and wash your feet, and ye shall 
rise up early, and go on your ways." (Gen. 19: 2.) The 
next is when Abraham's servant went for a wife for Isaac, 
Laban, her brother, ungirded his camels and gave straw 
and provender for the camels and water to wash his feet 
and the men's feet that were with him, and there was set 
meat before them to eat. (Gen. 24.) Joseph's brethren 
went to dine with Joseph. "The man brought the men into 
Joseph's house, and gave them water, and they washed 
their feet; and he gave their asses provender." (Gen. 43: 
24.) Abigail was sent for to be the wife of David. She 
said : "Let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of 
the servants of my lord." (1 Sam. 25: 41.) David said 
to Uriah: "Go down to thy house, and wash thy feet." (2 
Sam. 11 : 8.) "So he brought him into his house, and gave 
provender unto the asses: and they washed their feet, and 
did eat and drink." (Judg. 19: 21.) 

These examples from the Old Testament show it was a 
universal custom, as an act of hospitality, to give water to 
wash and bathe the feet. When especial honor wished to 
be conferred, the servants washed the feet of the guests 
that were honored. 

Jesus went into the Pharisees' house and sat down to 
meat. "A woman, . . . which was a sinner, . . . 
brought an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 251 

behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, 
and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed 
his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." (Luke 
7: 37, 38.) This was an act of exceeding humiliation and 
kindness. The host in his heart was condemning Jesus 
for letting a sinner do this. Jesus chides him with lack of 
hospitality and kindness in failing to give him water to 
wash his feet. "This woman has supplemented your lack 
of hospitality by her tears in doing the washing for me, 
wiping with her hair." Jesus said to Simon: "Seest thou 
this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me 
no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with 
tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou 
gavest me no kiss : but this woman since the time I came in 
hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou 
didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet 
with ointment." (Luke 7: 44-46.) Here it is classed by 
the Savior with acts of personal hospitality and kindness. 

At the end of a day's journey, when they had finished 
supper, when the time for washing their feet was come, 
the Savior took a towel and basin of water and proceeded 
to wash the disciples' feet, as we find in John 13: 1-15. 
This was at least two days before the Lord's Supper was 
instituted, as any one may see by examining the record. 
It was performed before the establishment of the church, 
in no connection with any church ordinance, simply as an 
act of condescending humility and kindness upon the part 
of the Master as an example for them to follow as individ- 
uals in their social relations. It was a practical enforce- 
ment of the precept: "He that would be greatest, let him 
be servant of all." 

The only other reference to it in the New Testament is 
1 Tim. 5 : 9, 10 : "Let not a widow be taken into the num- 
ber [sustained by the church] under threescore years old, 
having been the wife of one man, well reported of for good 
works ; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged 
strangers, if she have washed the saints' feet [when she 
lodged them], if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have 
diligently followed every good work." Here Paul places it 
with good works — just where the Savior did, just where it 
had stood among the people of God from the foundation of 
the world, just where it now stands by the authority of 
God. No man can believe it is a church ordinance, for 
faith cannot exist without evidence. There is not a parti- 
cle of evidence to that point in the Bible. It is a mere 
whim. Whims are the hardest things to argue out of peo- 
ple that ever get into them, so far as our experience goes. 



252 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

This is all we know on the subject of foot washing as 
taught in the Bible. Whoever observes it as a church or- 
dinance must take bringing up children, waiting on the af- 
flicted, entertaining strangers, as a church ordinance, too. 
It has stood inseparably connected with these from the foun- 
dation of the world. D. L. 

"FOREKNEW," WHOM GOD. 

Please explain through your paper Rom. 8: 29, 30. I am in doubt 
as to the meaning of it. Who was it he foreknew or predestinated? 

"For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to 
be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the 
first-born among many brethren. Moreover whom he did 
predestinate, them he also called : and whom he called, them 
he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glori- 
fied." (Rom. 8: 29, 30.) The word foreknow means to 
know beforehand. Predestinate means to determine be- 
forehand. This means God knew and determined certain 
things beforehand, but does not by any means intimate how 
long beforehand, whether from before the beginning of 
time or long since man was created. We think it suffi- 
ciently definite to understand that since man sinned in the 
garden, God foreknew that he would provide a plan of sal- 
vation for men, and foreknew that some would embrace 
that plan when presented to them. Not only did God fore- 
know this, but he foretold it. Many times during the Old 
Testament days did God foretell a plan of salvation, and 
also foretold that many would receive it, not only of the 
Jews, but of the Gentiles. The promise to Abraham that 
in his seed all nations should be blessed is a strong proph- 
ecy that many would receive Christ, the promised seed, and 
be blessed or saved in him. God also predetermined, pre- 
destinated, that all that would receive Christ should be 
saved by him, while all that rejected him should be de- 
stroyed, as expressed in Deut. 18. Hence, that many would 
receive Christ was known by God long before he came, 
while at the same time it was predestinated that all such 
should be saved, should be conformed to the image of 
Christ, should be made like him in the matter of service to 
God, and made like him in the resurrection, when these vile 
bodies shall be changed and fashioned like to his glorious 
body. 

In full harmony with God's foreknowledge, Christ came 
and provided the plan of salvation ; and as soon as provided, 
it was sent out to the whole word by the apostles, with the 
solemn decree that "he that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Thus 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 253 

all the people were called, and many had embraced this call 
in Paul's time, while many have embraced it since and 
many are continually embracing it. And the same bless- 
ings will be to all who will serve God faithfully through 
this life as the gospel requires. The same also will be true 
in eternity with all who served God faithfully in former 
dispensations; and some think these are the very ones re- 
ferred to in these verses, especially those that arose and 
came out of their graves after Christ's resurrection and 
appeared unto many in the holy city. 

The principle is the same to all the saved in the final out- 
come of Christianity. All at the resurrection will be con- 
formed to the image of Christ, will have bodies like to his 
glorious body, and will dwell with him for evermore. The 
principles also of foreknowledge and predestination are 
very much the same, whether you apply the passage to those 
who had served God faithfully through life before Christ 
came or those that have embraced and faithfully lived out 
the demands of the gospel since Christ came. The point I 
would especially emphasize is that the passage does not in 
any sense, signify that the foreknowledge and predestina- 
tion mentioned here was that certain persons were predesti- 
nated to be certainly saved, while others were predestinated 
to be certainly lost. It only means that all the obedient will 
certainly be saved here and hereafter, and that God or- 
dained it thus. E. G. S. 

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION, GOD'S. 

In reading the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Ephesians, do 
you think it teaches that the twelve apostles were chosen or predes- 
tinated before the foundation of the world? If it teaches that, 
which it seems to do, do you think, then, that Judas was predesti- 
nated to betray Christ and to hang himself? 

The foreknowledge of God, as used in the Bible, means 
what God has before made known to man (1 Pet. 1:2); 
elect according to the foreknowledge of God means elected 
according to the terms before made known to the world. 

I doubt if there is what we call fore and after with God. 
All time is present. "One day is with the Lord as a thou- 
sand years, and a thousand years as one day." But what 
God has made known to man heretofore is called fore- 
knowledge. Before this he made it known to man. He 
says of Christ: "Who verily was foreordained before the 
foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last 
times for you." (1 Pet. 1: 20.) In the beginning God 
provided that Jesus Christ should come to save men. Then 
he, as a lamb, was slain from the foundation of the world, 



254 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

but manifested in these last times for you who do believe in 
Christ. Christ was preordained as the means of salvation 
to all who should enter him. God did not choose or pre- 
destinate which persons should enter Christ, but he chose 
or predestinated that those who entered him should be 
saved. Then at any time when persons have entered Christ 
they can say: "We were chosen or predestinated unto sal- 
vation in him before the foundation of the world." God 
chose or predestinated Judas just as he does every man. 
He never made any man wicked or bad. "God hath made 
man upright; but they have sought out many inventions." 
(Eccles. 7: 29.) When they make themselves wicked, he 
appoints them to do evil work and then to destruction for 
the evil done. I have no doubt Jesus selected Judas be- 
cause he knew his character and that he was fitted to do the 
work of treason. God did not make him bad ; he chose him 
to do a wicked work because he found in him the character 
fitted to do it. D. L. 

FOREKNOWLEDGE AND PREDESTINATION, DIFFER- 
ENCE BETWEEN. 

Brother Sewell: If it is not asking too much of you, please give 
us your views in regard to the difference, if there be any, between 
God's foreknowing and foreordaining or predestinating whatsoever 
comes to pass. 

There is certainly a difference between foreknowledge 
and foreordination or predestination. One involves much 
more than the other. He foreknows all that he foretells, 
but he does not decree or predestinate all that he foretells. 
He foreknew and foretold through Moses awful sufferings 
that would come upon the Jewish people on account of their 
sins. He foreknew that they would sin, but he did not 
foreordain or decree that they should of necessity do so; 
but he did foreordain or decree that they should suffer on 
account of their sins when they committed them. Instead 
of decreeing that they should sin, he foretold the very sort 
of sins they committed ; and he foretold the sufferings they 
would have to undergo as a warning against sin, to keep 
them from sinning, that they might escape the ruin that 
sin brings. The Son of God foreknew and foretold eternal 
life and eternal death, and that the wicked would be doomed 
to eternal death ; but he did not predestinate that the peo- 
ple should sin. He only foretold that many would, and 
that they would be lost if they did. This was a warning 
of ruin to them if they did sin. He has made man a free 
moral agent to choose sin or to be a servant of God ; but he 
has ordained, has predestinated, has decreed, that those who 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 255 

choose a sinful life shall suffer eternal death. But he has 
left it to man to choose whether he will live in sin or be a 
servant of God. He decrees eternal ruin to a sinful life, 
but does not decree that some shall sin nor that others 
shall be servants of God. All this is left with them. The 
destiny is a matter of predestination; the life is a matter 
of choice with each individual. God never did decree that 
a certain part of the human race should of necessity sin, 
nor that another part should of necessity be righteous. 
Life and death are set before men, with the grandest of mo- 
tives to do the right and avoid the wrong. If they do the 
right, life is decreed for them ; if they do wickedly, eternal 
death is the decree. 

FOREKNOW, DID GOD, THAT HE WOULD PUNISH 
CERTAIN MEN? 

Brother Lipscomb: I am continually confronted with this ques- 
tion: "If God foreknew all things, he certainly would not punish a 
man in hell for doing what he knew he would do before creating 
him." Give me a suggestion on it. Please show harmony between 
Gen. 6: 6 and James 1: 17. Is repent in Gen. 6: 6 from metanoeo? 
Does not the phraseology in Matt. 3: 11 teach that the same parties 
who should receive a baptism of the Holy Ghost should also receive a 
baptism of fire? 

Genesis was written in Hebrew, not Greek. It has been 
translated into Greek. In the Greek translation neither 
metanoeo nor metamelomai is used. The Septuagint, the 
Greek translation as translated into English, reads thus: 
"And the Lord God having seen that the wicked actions of 
men were multiplied upon the earth, and that every one in 
his heart was brooding over evil continually, then God laid 
it to heart that he had made man upon the earth, and he 
pondered it deeply. And God said, I will blot out man 
whom I have made from the face of the earth, even man, 
with cattle, and reptiles, with flying creatures of the sky, 
for I am grieved that I have made them." While that is a 
true presentation of the thought, yet to accommodate di- 
vine thoughts to man's capacity God sometimes applies to 
himself terms that must be understood in a limited sense. 
For instance, the Bible says : "God is not tempted of man, 
neither tempteth he any man." Again it says: "God did 
tempt Abraham." Shallow minds, anxious to growl at 
God, who never study the Bible, taking these sentences out 
of their connection, say they contradict each other; but 
every one who desires to understand the Bible can see the 
different senses in which the word repent is used, and sees 
how God, teaching men, applies to himself qualities that 
are true of him only in a limited sense, and that there is 



256 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

no contradiction in the statements. The context always 
will show the true meaning if studied. Paul says: "Bear 
ye one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." 
In a few verses he says : "For every man shall bear his own 
burden/' A shallow-minded carper says there is contra- 
diction. A man desirous to know the truth sees there are 
certain kinds of burdens we can help each other in bearing, 
and there are others that each man must bear for himself, 
that no human can help him to bear, and, with all human 
help possible in the end, each must bear his own burdens. 

God has left it so that a carping, fault-finding spirit that 
does not want to obey God can always find excuses not to 
do it. This is right. God does not want that faultfinding 
spirit in his heavenly kingdom. He tries all spirits, tempts 
them so they can fully prove each his character, and by 
the rule of the eternal fitness of things each will find his 
own congenial home. God wants in the new heavens and 
the new earth only those who love righteousness and wish 
to do his will. Those who do not wish to do his will, he 
gives them excuses for finding fault, not doing his will, and 
so going to their own company. Some think it very un- 
reasonable for God to condemn man to everlasting ruin. 
They fix up a standard in their own minds for God and 
judge what he will do. That is putting themselves above 
God, fixing a rule for him. The meaning of this is, they 
wish to sin against God and yet be saved. God lets them 
fix up a theory and satisfy themselves and go their own 
way to ruin. There is no ground for such a conclusion 
from what God has done in this world or what he has re- 
vealed in the Bible. There is harmony in the teachings of 
the Bible and what we see in the world. Men suffer here. 
If God foresaw man would suffer here, how could he cre- 
ate him ? There is more of suffering than there is of hap- 
piness among men on earth. If God permits man to suffer 
in this world, why do we think it incompatible with his 
character to let him suffer in the world to come? 

When I was a boy, I belonged to a debating society. An 
older man, with more learning and experience than the rest 
of us, was always wanting to discuss universal salvation. 
He thought he could whip us all on it. I finally proposed 
to him that if he would discuss universal and eternal dam- 
nation with me, I would affirm that. I wanted to show him 
the other extreme. He agreed to it. I argued that from 
our observation here God delighted in the suffering of his 
creatures. Usually the first breath the innocent babe drew 
was a wail of suffering, the last breath he drew was one of 
anguish, and almost every breath between the first and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 257 

the last was one of pain and unrest. The few moments of 
ease were only to make the pains more painful. Then I 
went to the Bible and found, "The soul that sinneth, it 
shall die," and, "No man liveth and sinneth not," and much 
along the same line, and that God was not satisfied until he 
had every being in the universe in a hell of endless despair. 
This position is susceptible of much easier proof than the 
opposite, if we take them as presented here on earth or 
in the Bible. The Bible presents man exactly as he is here. 
After this discussion, my friend never wanted to discuss 
Universalism any more. 

Judged by what the world presents, man is born to suf- 
fer. The gospel gives hope to those who trust Jesus. We 
suggest one extreme to contrast the other. Neither is true. 
But one-sided views are false and misleading. Just as 
well ask : If God foresaw man would suffer here, how could 
he create him to suffer and be a good God? We mistake 
altogether God's aim in creating and dealing with man. 
It is to prove and test men and see who is worthy to stand 
in his everlasting kingdom. Those who are will be saved in 
in; those not worthy will be cast into outer darkness, 
where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Matt. 3: 
12 explains the preceding verse: The wheat will be gath- 
ered into the garner, the chaff burned in fire unquenchable. 
Usually reading the connection explains the difficulties. 
James 1 : 17 says there is no variableness, neither shadow 
of turning, with God. That does not contradict Gen. 6 : 6, 
which says it repented him that he had made man. God 
did not change. It was his purpose from the beginning to 
punish sin. God has never changed from that purpose. 
When man changes from good to bad, God changes his feel- 
ings toward and treatment of him. 

FOREORDINATION AND PREDESTINATION. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Eph. 1: 4-6. The words are 
these: "According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation 
of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him 
in love: having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by 
Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to 
the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted 
in the beloved." 

The Greek word that is translated world in this passage, 
which speaks of somebody being chosen in Christ before 
the foundation of the world, literally means "order, ar- 
rangement, regulation, institution, constitution, the world," 
etc. From these definitions from Greek lexicons it is clear 
that the word does not necessarily mean this physical world, 
the earth on which we live, but just as literally means in- 



258 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

stitution. Hence we might render the passage thus, "Be- 
fore the foundation of the institution/' with all the au- 
thority that can be found for the word world; and then 
the only question would be : Of what institution, what order 
of things? To which the most appropriate answer would 
be: The Christian institution. And this at once takes all 
the difficulty out of the passage. As it now stands, most 
people understand the word world to mean the earth on 
which we live; and hence they derive the idea that God 
chose certain persons to be saved before the earth was 
created or a single human being was brought into exist- 
ence. Hence the doctrine of election and reprobation — 
that a part of the human race from all eternity was fore- 
ordained to be saved and another part to be lost, and that 
the number on both sides was unchangeably fixed; and 
this passage in our Common Version, saying, "chosen us 
in him before the foundation of the world," is supposed to 
teach just that. We have not the least idea that the foun- 
dation of the earth was in the apostle's mind when he wrote 
the above passage. He had reference to the new institu- 
tion, or church of God, the Christian world; and this re- 
moves all the fog of eternal election out of the way as it has 
usually been taught. 

And, in the next place, when the apostle said, "hath 
chosen us in him," the word us does not refer to all Chris- 
tians, nor even to the Ephesians, to whom Paul was writ- 
ing. He uses the pronouns we and us down to verse 13, 
and then changes and says ye — "in whom ye also trusted," 
etc. In the verses in which he says we and us he either 
speaks of himself or the Jewish Christians, as such, who 
first trusted in Christ. We are inclined to think that he 
had reference to the Jewish Christians, to whom the gospel, 
by God's arrangement, was first preached. 

The whole matter of Christianity was foreknown, fore- 
ordained and foretold, long before the foundation stone of 
the church of God was laid in Zion. Christ himself is the 
chief corner stone in the Christian temple. He was not 
laid in the temple till the fullness of time came and he was 
developed in the world ; and thus, before the foundation of 
the church of God was laid, God foretold the whole matter 
in general terms in the Old Testament just as it was ful- 
filled in the New Testament. In this sense the Jews were 
chosen in him before the foundation of the world, the 
church of God. All are in this sense chosen in him that 
will embrace the gospel of Jesus. But if Paul means him- 
self when he said "hath chosen us in him," then it only 
means Paul was chosen in him to be an apostle before the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 259 

foundation of the church of God ; and this was literally 
true, for when Ananias objected to go to him, the Lord said 
to him : "Go thy way : for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to 
bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the chil- 
dren of Israel." (Acts 9 : 15.) So he was a man that God 
chose to be an apostle ; and if Paul refers to that in the pas- 
sage in Ephesians, then it can only mean that he was chosen 
for that purpose before the foundation of the Christian 
institution. Either one of these solutions leaves the pas- 
sage without confusion or mysticism. 

The next point of apparent obscurity or difficulty is in 
verse 5: "Having predestinated us unto the adoption of 
children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good 
pleasure of his will." The difficulty is in the word pre- 
destinated. Many refer this predestination back before the 
foundation of the earth, and suppose that God from all 
eternity predestinated certain ones to be saved. Predesti- 
nate simply means to determine or decree beforehand. 
God determined to send his Son into the world long before 
he did it, and foretold that he would do so. He also de- 
creed beforehand that when the Savior should come, all 
that would receive him should be blessed in him, and that 
all who rejected him should be destroyed, as we learn from 
Deut. 18. Jesus, therefore, in the fullness of time came 
into the world and died upon the cross for sinners; and 
when he rose from the dead, with all power in heaven and 
earth given into his hands, and before he ascended to 
heaven, he fully developed God's decrees for the salvation 
of sinners as follows : "Go ye into all the world, and preach 
the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is bap- 
tized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be 
damned." Here is a full development of all the decrees 
and predestinations God ever made regarding man's salva- 
tion or condemnation by Jesus, our Lord. This places the 
gospel before all men, leaving them to their own choice 
whether they will believe and be saved by obeying it or dis- 
believe and be lost. All the Jews, therefore, including Paul, 
who accepted the gospel and obeyed it were adopted as 
children by Jesus Christ, and were thus saved according to 
the good pleasure of his will. And as there is no difference 
between the Jew and Gentile in matters of salvation, the 
same principles are true with them that were true with the 
Jews. Every one, therefore, that is saved by the gospel 
is one of God's chosen children, saved according to his fore- 
knowledge and predestination. But this predestination of 
God consists in the fact that God predestinated a plan of 
salvation and foreordained that any and every one that 



260 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

would receive it should be saved and every one that re- 
jected it should be lost. He never foreordained that a 
certain number or part of the human race should of neces- 
sity receive it and be saved and the rest should necessarily 
reject it and be lost. There is nothing like this taught in 
the Bible from beginning to end. Every one, therefore, 
that obeys the gospel is one of God's chosen people, chosen 
and elected by the gospel of Christ, which is God's foreor- 
dained plan for saving men. But no man will ever be one 
of God's elect except by receiving and obeying the gospel 
of Christ. Therefore when we read in the New Testament 
about God's foreknowledge, foreordination, and predestina- 
tion, we only need to refer back to the Old Testament to 
find the foundation of it all in prophecy. All God's de- 
crees for the redemption of man culminated in the plan of 
salvation through Jesus Christ, offered free to all who will 
accept. E. G. S. 

FORGIVING A BROTHER. 

If a brother in the church offend us, is it right for us to forgive 
him whether he comes and asks us to or not, or must we hold it 
against him until he comes and asks our pardon? Would it not be 
more Christlike to forgive him and try to love him as much as lieth 
in us, whether he comes and asks us to or not? 

Christ never forgave any one his sins until he repented 
of them, nor do we see how any one can. Christ loved 
them while yet sinners, was anxious for them to repent, 
suffered and died to bring them to repentance. We should 
be like him ; should love men, be willing to suffer that they 
may be brought to repentance, and be kind, gentle, long- 
suffering to help them to turn ; but there is and can be no 
forgiveness with God or man without repentance; and 
when a man sincerely repents, he will confess and ask for- 
giveness of whomsoever he has offended. 

FORGIVING WITHOUT REPENTANCE. 

Brother Sewell: Does not the Bible teach us to forgive our ene- 
mies whether they repent and ask forgiveness or not? I heard a 
preacher of the gospel say there are no passages in the Bible where 
any one ever forgave another unless he repented. I say the Bible 
teaches us that we must forgive whether they repent and ask our 
forgiveness or not. 

Here is a passage that settles this question: "Take heed 
to yourselves : If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke 
him; and if he repent, forgive him. And if he trespass 
against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day 
turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive 
him." (Luke 17: 3, 4.) There are two sides to this ques- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 261 

tion. If one does us a wrong, it is our duty to tell him of 
his wrong, and thus rebuke him for his wrong. Then, if 
he repents, we must forgive him ; but if he will not repent, 
he is not worthy of forgiveness. But we have no right to 
hold malice against him, nor to in any way take vengeance 
upon him. But we can follow the rule given in another 
passage, which is to take one or two with us ; and if he re- 
fuses to hear them, we can bring it before the church ; and 
if he refuses to hear the church, then let him be as a 
heathen or a publican — that is, let the church withdraw 
from him and leave him with other sinners. That may 
cause him to repent. If not, the Lord will attend to his 
case in due time. (See Matt. 18: 15-17.) But no Chris- 
tian has the right to punish, hold malice against, or abuse 
another. It is a fact that God himself does not forgive 
sinners that will not repent. All such will be lost at last. 
Let a Christian in such cases do right in all things, no 
matter what a backslider or rebellious member may do. 
But if the wrongdoer will not repent, he will be sure of his 
deserts at last. 

FORGIVENESS, GROUND OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Are not the sins of ignorance for- 
given solely on account of the death and the intercession of Christ? 

All sins are forgiven only through the intercession of 
Christ, and his sufferings and death are the "procuring 
cause," as the theologians call it. They made the condi- 
tions possible. But men must appropriate them through 
complying with the conditions prescribed. All sin must be 
repented of before we can receive pardon. Its being solely 
through the blood of Christ does not obviate the necessity 
of our complying with the conditions which that blood se- 
cured for us and sealed to us. D. L. 

FUNDS, RAISING TO SUPPORT THE GOSPEL. 

Brother Lipscomb: Has the Holy Spirit given a definite plan by 
which the churches should raise funds for the spread of the gospel 
and to relieve the poor saints? Please explain 1 Cor. 16: 2, espe- 
cially the phrase "lay by him in store." Our congregation is some- 
what divided on this phrase. Some take the position that we can lay 
by at home or bring it on Lord's day and put it into the contribution 
box, while others believe that we should bring it on Lord's day and 
put it into the contribution box. 

The letter to the Corinthians was addressed to the church 
at Corinth, "with all that in every place call upon the name 
of Jesus Christ our Lord." This shows the letter was 
written for universal use. In chapter 16 he says: "As 
I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. 



262 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by 
him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no 
gatherings when I come." The laying by in store was to 
relieve the poor saints in Judea. They were commanded 
to do it, so there would be no gatherings when he arrived 
there. That, of itself, ought to satisfy every person that 
the offerings ought to be placed in a common store, or treas- 
ury. If each laid by at home, there would be the same 
necessity for gathering it together as if he had not put it in 
store. Indeed, I take it every man's money was already 
in his own store, or treasury. If any claim it was to be 
separated to itself and kept at home, I will venture none 
who so claim ever thus separate it. Under this claim 
nothing is done. While putting it in the treasury is ap- 
proved by the Spirit, it is not the only way approved. In- 
dividuals sometimes aided Paul directly, and all are com- 
manded to "do good as opportunity offers." This refers 
to men in the everyday walks of life. When they see an 
opportunity to do good, do it. Christians ought to be en- 
couraged to give of their productions as they are needed. 
A load of wood or coal or corn or hay would sometimes be 
more useful than money, and frequently could be more 
easily spared. It would not be convenient always to put a 
load of hay or a cow and calf into the church treasury ; yet 
when money for church uses is needed, I have never seen 
any reason why it should not be done by the weekly contri- 
bution, since this plan has received the approval of God. 
Much of the objections to doing this arises from a conten- 
tious spirit or a dislike to doing anything. The effective 
way to prevent doing anything is to find objections to all 
ways and methods for doing it. The church or the elders 
cannot depend upon or use it until it gets into the church 
treasury. 

FUNDS, DISTRIBUTING. 

Explain in the Gospel Advocate how church funds are to be ex- 
pended — whether by order of the elders or majority or by the one who 
holds the means. 

Paul and Barnabas carried funds to the elders to be dis- 
tributed under their order. We know of no other or better 
rule. 

FUNERAL PREACHING. 

Brother Sewell: When and where was the origin of funeral 
preaching, and what was its original design? Is it right for a 
preacher to preach an alien sinner's funeral? Do you not think that 
there is a great deal of reckless preaching along this line? If God 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 263 

would save one man (that is a subject of gospel address and has had 
many opportunities) that dies in his sins, would that not make Uni- 
versalism true? 

I do not know the time or place or by whom funeral 
preaching was first started, nor the end had in view in start- 
ing the custom. It has been in vogue a long time, and will 
likely continue a long time yet. It is also true that a vast 
amount of false doctrine has been preached in funerals. 
The truth has been fearfully perverted, and these things 
will still go on. Whether funeral preaching be continued 
or discontinued, the same perversions of truth will still go 
on, and warfare against funeral preaching will by no means 
stop false teaching. There is one thing that ought to be 
done, and that is, all preachers ought to preach the truth 
on such occasions, and nothing but the truth, and then no 
harm will be done. It is not wrong to preach the truth at 
funerals, any more than on other occasions. It is wrong 
to make the impression at funerals that any one will be 
saved that does not obey the word of the Lord. And it is 
just as wrong to make that impression anywhere else as at 
funerals, and ought to be stopped ; but it will not be stopped 
till all preachers are willing to preach the whole truth on all 
occasions and at all places, and I do not think they will all 
do that soon. All I know to be done is for all men that see 
the whole truth to stand by it faithfully and do all they can 
to get others to see it and stand by it. 

FUNERAL SERMONS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I wish to know why it is that a 
funeral sermon is preached in memory of any person who departs this 
life. I do not see any account given in the word of God where any 
of the apostles preached a funeral sermon. 

It is right to preach the word of God anywhere and un- 
der any circumstances to living, responsible beings; but it 
is wrong to pervert, misapply, or violate the word of God 
anywhere and everywhere and under all circumstances. 
Sometimes what are called "funerals" may be favorable 
opportunities to impress the truth upon the living, and 
where the word of the Lord is faithfully presented we see 
no harm in the custom. Great harm may be done, and 
doubtless often is done, by perverting the word of God on 
funeral occasions ; but the same thing is done on other oc- 
casions. Funerals are simply occasions or opportunities 
for preaching the word of the Lord, and we see no harm 
in them, if the preachers will not make harm by perverting 
and misapplying the word of God or teaching the opinions 
of men. 



264 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

FUTURE, DOES GOD KNOW ALL THE? 

Brother Sewell: (1) Does the word of God teach that God knows 
the future life of man? (2) Does the word of God teach that God 
knows who will go to hell or heaven before they are born? 

(1) One thing is certain about the foreknowledge of 
God, and that is that he foreknows that all that will faith- 
fully do his will in this life will be saved in eternity, while 
all that refuse to do his will will be lost in eternity; and 
this is the interesting and practical side of God's fore- 
knowledge. 

(2) Whether God knows all the individuals that will do 
his will and all that will not do it is a question the Bible 
does not say much about; and that is not a question upon 
which our salvation depends, and it would not help us in 
our salvation if we knew. But he does know, and all along 
has foretold, that those who do his will are sure of heaven, 
while all who reject his will are sure of eternal ruin. 

FUTURES, CAN CHRISTIANS DEAL IN? 

Brother Lipscomb: Is dealing in futures gambling? Should a 
Christian deal in futures? If dealing in futures is gambling, what 
step should a congregation take in such a case? Please answer 
through the Gospel Advocate for the benefit of some congregations. 
Some brethren deal in futures in Texas. 

We published the following on November 23, 1899 ; we 
do not see we could improve it : 

"All trade or business with others that is legitimate for 
Christians is that which helps both parties to the trade. 
The trade which helps me, but injures another, is not law- 
ful for a Christian. Only that business is legitimate for a 
Christian which benefits and helps both parties or all par- 
ties affected by it. What injures or wrongs any, a Chris- 
tian cannot engage in. All gambling schemes or games by 
which one gains and another loses are sinful. One gains 
without any adequate or just returns; another loses all, 
gets nothing in return. No Christian can engage in such 
games. Men are led into such by the love of money. They 
love money better than they love justice, fairness, upright- 
ness ; better than they love God. Under this head of gam- 
bling come all speculation and buying of futures. This 
is gambling upon what may be the price of goods or val- 
ues of any kind in the future. In this trading you get or 
lose money without any compensating good. Selling and 
buying wheat or cotton is legitimate business. The owner 
needs the price of his wheat or cotton and is accommodated 
by the sale. The man buys for use or to hold and sell to 
another when he needs it, and accommodates him by buy- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 265 

ing and holding until he is ready to use it. He is entitled 
to pay for taking and holding it. All parties trading are 
accommodated and benefited by this trading; but when a 
person 'buys a future,' he buys nothing that accommodates 
any one, has nothing to sell that will benefit any one. He 
stakes his money on what the price of the article will be in 
the future. What he makes, some one else loses, without 
anything in return ; or, if he loses, some one gets it without 
giving a consideration in return. It is in all essential fea- 
tures gambling, getting something for nothing; and this is 
not honest, tested by Bible principles. That the others 
agree to take the chances does not change the moral char- 
acter of the transaction. If a dozen men were to agree 
that they would engage in stealing one from another, and 
they would not prosecute one another, and he who suc- 
ceeded in stealing the most could hold it, this would not 
prevent its being stealing or change its moral character 
in the sight of God. Nothing of value is bought or sold in 
buying and selling futures ; no one is profited, save he 
who gets his fellow man's money for naught, and they who 
lose are injured. This is gambling; it is getting another's 
goods for naught; it is dishonesty. This is more hurtful 
than other forms of gambling or dishonest gains, because 
it is regarded as more respectable and honorable than these. 
Men are led into this kind of business by the love of money. 
Let all such heed the exhortation : 'Let him that stole steal 
no more : but rather let him labor, working with his hands 
the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him 
that needeth.' It is injurious and hurtful to the man en- 
gaging in it in many ways. He is badly injured in his 
moral and spiritual character when he becomes willing to 
make a living for himself and family out of the losses of 
others, for which they get nothing in return. The gains 
are generally from the most needy and helpless classes. 
The habit of making a living by these futures begets a fe- 
verish state of mind that disqualifies the person for regular 
productive business of any kind that will bring good to all ; 
it unfits him for the regular habits of worship and for at- 
tendance upon the services of God; it violates the laws of 
the land, and so violates the law of God, which commands 
Christians to 'obey the powers that be;' it sets a bad ex- 
ample to others, young and old — especially the excitable 
and the young — to lead them to seek to make a living by 
chance or gambling, that injures all and helps none, and 
unfits them for regular habits of industry in that which is 
good ; it is not only sinful, but it is supreme folly from a 
business standpoint. Where one succeeds, a thousand fail — 



266 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

spend their all and become pecuniary wrecks. A man is a 
fool to engage in a business where the chances of success 
are so few; those of failure, so many. No sensible man 
would think of engaging in any industrial calling with the 
chances of success so few. It is only the gambling mania 
that leads them to risk so in dealings in futures. 

"We write this at this time because the renewal of pros- 
perity and the increase in values of cotton and stocks ex- 
cite this mania, and many are tempted to try their luck on 
rising values. A few gains in the beginning lead on to 
greater risks to all who engage in it and bring ruin to nine 
hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand. The Bible and 
common sense alike warn not to engage in such means of 
gain." 11 if! 

GENERATION OF VIPERS, DID JOHN BAPTIZE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: For the benefit of some of my 
neighbors especially, and perhaps many others, please explain Matt. 
3: 7 through the Gospel Advocate — whether John baptized the gen- 
eration of vipers or not. 

John baptized such as manifested a disposition to be- 
lieve his teaching and repent of their sins. t His procla- 
mation was, "Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at 
hand;" and it was very evident that those who were will- 
ing to believe his declaration that the kingdom of heaven is 
at hand and who were willing to repent of their sins were 
baptized by him. But there were many of the Jews that 
rejected the preaching of John, as well as Christ himself 
when he entered upon his personal ministry. When John 
called those Pharisees and Sadducees a "generation of 
vipers," he doubtless knew that many of them only came 
to oppose his teaching and to claim that they were already 
the children of God because they were the posterity of 
Abraham. When he said, "I indeed baptize you," etc., he 
only meant such as heartily accepted his teaching. John 
did not go about baptizing everybody he could lay his hands 
upon, whether they accepted his teaching or not; he just 
baptized those who wanted to be baptized upon their recep- 
tion of his teaching. We know there were many in John's 
day among the Jews that rejected his baptism. "But the 
Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against 
themselves, being not baptized of him" (John). (Luke 
7: 30.) This shows that there were many that heard 
John's preaching who refused to be baptized. John was 
certainly a man of common sense and sincerity; and when 
he could induce those to whom he preached to accept his 
teaching, so that they desired to be baptized, he baptized 
them, and not otherwise. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 267 

GENTILES, HOW SAVED? 

What do you understand the Scriptures to teach as respects the 
Gentiles before the gospel was preached to the world? Will they be 
saved without obedience to the gospel just by acting according to 
their best light, or condemned again? Will the people during the 
twelve hundred years of the Dark Ages be saved without obedience 
to the gospel by acting according to their best light, or condemned? 

If people of any age or country can be saved by their ig- 
norance, without obedience to God, it is a great pity to en- 
lighten them ; for it is a certain fact that where people are 
enlightened but few of them will be saved. But the word 
of God teaches that "the whole world lieth in wickedness/' 
(1 John 5: 19.) The Bible also teaches that the wicked 
will be cast into hell, with all the nations that forget God. 
This does not look much like saving the world on its igno- 
rance. 

GHOST, THE HOLY. 

Brother Sewell: Another question for information on the bap- 
tism of the Holy Ghost, from Acts 19: 6: "And when Paul had laid 
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake 
with tongues, and prophesied." What is the difference between this 
instance and the giving of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost 
and at the house of Cornelius? Please explain Acts 8: 17. 

There are several very decided differences between spir- 
itual gifts and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. In the case 
of spiritual gifts, there was only power imparted to each 
individual to do one thing. Paul says : "For to one is given 
by the Spirit the word of wisdom ; to another the word of 
knowledge by the same Spirit ; to another faith by the same 
Spirit ; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit ; 
to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; 
to another discerning of spirits ; to another divers kinds of 
tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all 
these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to 
every man severally as he will." (1 Cor. 12: 8-11.) Then 
another difference is : These gifts, so far as we know, were 
imparted through the laying on of the hands of other in- 
spired men ; while in the case of the apostles on the day of 
Pentecost the Spirit came upon them directly from heaven, 
with a great sound, and cloven tongues appeared and sat 
upon each of them, and they were all filled with the Spirit 
and spoke as the Spirit gave them utterance. The power 
of the Holy Spirit on these was so great that each one 
could speak in any language needed, could heal the sick, 
raise the dead, and do any wonder that was needful to be 
done; while one receiving a spiritual gift could only exer- 
cise the one gift that was given him. Another item of dis- 



268 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tinction was that the power of the Spirit upon the apostles 
is called a baptism, while the gifts bestowed by the laying 
on of hands are never called a baptism in any way or at 
any time. The falling of the Holy Spirit upon the Gentiles 
at the house of Cornelius was like that which came upon 
the apostles on the day of Pentecost, and is also spoken of 
as a baptism. Peter, speaking of the occurrence at the 
house of Cornelius, said: "And as I began to speak, the 
Holy Spirit fell on them, even as on us at the beginning. 
And I remembered the word of the Lord, how he said, John 
indeed baptized with water ; but ye shall be baptized in the 
Holy Spirit." (Acts 11: 15, 16.) Only these two occur- 
rences are called baptism in the Spirit. Acts 8: 17 is the 
instance of Peter and John being sent to Samaria when 
Philip had preached the gospel to those people and many 
of them believed and were baptized. These apostles, Pe- 
ter and John, laid their hands on them, "and they received 
the Holy Spirit." In this case it was apostles that laid 
hands on the people and imparted to them spiritual gifts. 
Some argue from this occurrence that none but the apostles 
could impart the Holy Spirit by laying on hands; but An- 
anias certainly imparted the Holy Spirit to Saul of Tarsus, 
afterwards the apostle Paul. (See Acts 9: 17.) Then 
elders afterwards imparted a gift to Timothy. (See 1 Tim. 
4: 14.) 

GHOST, THE HOLY, AND FIRE BAPTISM. 

Please give a plain explanation on Matt. 3: 10-12. Who were to 
be baptized with the Holy Ghost, and who with fire, and when? Does 
the fire in the three verses mean the same? 

John was addressing a mixed multitude, and we may 
understand that some of them would be baptized in fire and 
some in the Holy Spirit. The apostles were baptized in 
the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The wicked will 
be baptized in the fire of eternal destruction, and this is 
the fire that is spoken of in the verses referred to. The 
fire has no connection with the Holy Spirit. The fire is 
called unquenchable, with which the chaff, the wicked, are 
to be burned. The idea that the fire is a part of the bap- 
tism of the Spirit is certainly a mistake. E. G. S. 

GHOST, THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you please explain for me what sinning 
against the Holy Ghost is? Some of the brethren think it is a par- 
ticular sin, and, if committed, cannot be forgiven in this world or the 
world to come. Also please explain 1 John 5: 16. What is "sin 
unto death?" 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 269 

There have long been differences on that subject. Many 
hold that those who charged Jesus with casting out devils 
by Beelzebub committed the sin against the Holy Spirit. 
The connection will bear that interpretation. Still, it will 
bear another construction. These persons sinned against 
Jesus in making this charge. He warns them : "You may 
sin now against me, and find opportunities to repent; but 
the Holy Spirit will come, and if you reject him as you now 
do me, there will be no forgiveness, neither here nor here- 
after." The Holy Spirit was not the lawgiving and di- 
recting power at this time; it was not giving the law, so 
could not be sinned against. After he came as the law- 
giver and ruler, then to reject his teaching would be to sin 
against him. Until Jesus came as the ruler and representa- 
tive of God, men could not sin against or blaspheme him. 
They knew nothing of him ; so until the Holy Spirit came as 
the guide and ruler and gave laws, none could sin against 
the Holy Spirit. Then until the Holy Spirit came, none 
could sin against him. This is contrary to the generally 
received idea, but it is the only interpretation that I can 
harmonize with the other scriptures. Those who maligned, 
persecuted, and murdered Jesus did find forgiveness when 
brought by the Holy Spirit to repentance. The facts seem 
to be about this: Jesus came and performed his mission; 
many rejected him. After he returned to his Father's 
throne, the Holy Spirit came to confirm the truth he taught 
and to add to his testimony ; but when the Holy Spirit had 
performed his work, borne his testimony, there would 
be no further testimony or witness, and he who rejected 
his testimony then would be left to his own fate without 
further efforts to save. In other words, the Spirit would 
complete the testimony and would exhaust the provision 
God had made for saving man. If man rejects these, there 
is nothing more to reach him. There would be no more 
sacrifice for sin or provisions for mercy. According to 
this, the rejection of the teaching of the Holy Spirit and 
the refusal to be led by these teachings is the sin against 
the Holy Spirit. 

I do not know what the sin unto death is, further than 
defined in the foregoing. The apostle seemed to have be- 
fore him a sin that others could see and know was the sin 
unto death. What that was or is, I do not know. 

GIFT, THE, GIVEN TO TIMOTHY. 

In Paul's first letter to Timothy we have the following: 
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee 
by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the pres- 



270 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

bytery." (1 Tim. 4: 14.) A large proportion of the reli- 
gious world take the ground that the gift referred to here 
was the gift of office, given to Timothy by means of ordi- 
nation through fasting, prayer, and laying on of hands. 
We showed in an article preceding this one that there is no 
such thing in the church of God as office, in the common 
acceptation of that term. We showed that in the passages 
where the word office is applied to bishops and deacons 
there is no authority in the Greek for the word office at all. 
The word office, as applied to certain members of the church 
in contradistinction to others not officers, is without foun- 
dation in the New Testament. All the members are work- 
ers, but all are not expected to do the same work. But this 
difference in work by no means indicates the idea of officials 
and nonofficials. Since there is no such thing as office in 
the church of God bestowed by certain members upon oth- 
ers, there must be some mistake in the common application 
of the passage at the beginning of this article. As there 
is no such thing as office in or belonging to the church, then 
certainly the church has no power to confer that which it 
does not possess. If the church has power to confer office 
of any grade, then why not power to make a cardinal, a 
pope? If the power to confer office is left to the church at 
all, why may she not practice it to any extent? The idea 
that there is such a thing as office in the church is the very 
foundation of popery. And when it is once admitted that 
office can be conferred as a gift by the church upon its 
members, then where is the stopping place? What is the 
rule saying: "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?" 
We know of no such rule. There certainly is no law given 
in the New Testament by which a congregation can confer 
office as a gift upon its members. And if this gift that was 
in Timothy was an office in the church, then what office was 
it? He is not called a bishop; and if doing the work of an 
evangelist is an office, where is the authority for that? 
But we will examine the passage with more care, and see 
what we can learn from it. 

Paul says: "Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which 
was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands 
of the presbytery." This gift that Timothy had was in 
him and was given by prophecy. The word that is here 
rendered gift is the word generally used throughout the 
New Testament to signify a miraculous or spiritual gift. 
Paul desired to see the Romans that he might impart unto 
them some spiritual gift, that they might be established. 
This meant miraculous gifts evidently. Paul said to the 
Corinthians: "Now there are diversities of gifts, but the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 271 

same Spirit." He was here speaking of the miraculous 
gifts that were given to certain of the members of the 
church at Corinth. The Greek word is charisma, and in 
every passage where it occurs it has reference to some 
divine gift from God. 

This word occurs about seventeen times in the Greek 
Testament, and in all these passages it has reference to 
something divine or miraculous. It is never used to sig- 
nify an ordinary gift given by one man to another. In fact, 
one of the definitions in a Greek lexicon which is before 
me is: "A divinely conferred endowment." This much 
would not likely be said of an office conferred by the church 
— by a congregation. Then, again, this gift was given by 
prophecy. The word that is rendered prophecy here is al- 
most, if not altogether, used in the New Testament to sig- 
nify, to foretell by inspiration. This gift, then, was given 
to Timothy in obedience to prophetic direction to that ef- 
fect. And, in the next place, it was consummated with 
the laying on of the hands of the presbytery. The word 
presbytery signifies aged men — literally, the older men. 
There is nothing said in this passage about these elders be- 
ing inspired ; but evidently a very large number of men in 
all the churches in the apostolic age were inspired, and 
thus qualified to teach and rule in the church. There were 
such men at Ephesus, at Corinth, at Antioch, and, we doubt 
not, in all the churches. And we have no doubt but that it 
was a company of these inspired men, either great or small 
as to number, that laid their hands on Timothy and thereby 
imparted a gift to him. As to what that gift was, we have 
no means of knowing, any further than it was a gift that 
he could use in edifying Christians; and he is, therefore, 
commanded not to neglect it. This is equivalent to com- 
manding him to exercise, use the gift for the establishment 
of the cause where he was. Paul magnified his ministry 
as an apostle, and Timothy was here required to do the 
same — that is, to honor, to magnify his gift, whatever it 
was. 

And here, to our mind, is an example of others than 
apostles conferring miraculous gifts by the laying on of 
hands. In the second letter to Timothy, Paul speaks to 
him of a gift bestowed upon him in the laying on of his 
hands. But in this case the gift was bestowed with the 
laying on of the hands of the presbytery. And whatever 
Paul may have done at other times, here is something done 
by the presbytery — the older men. There was a gift con- 
ferred by these men with the laying on of their hands. Ac- 
cording to our understanding of the New Testament, all 



272 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the elders in the State of Tennessee or in the United States 
could not confer an office as a gift, in the common meaning 
of the words office and gift, upon any member. If they 
can, they can certainly make a cardinal. Why not? But 
not only in this case did men not apostles confer miraculous 
power by the laying on of hands, but, as we believe, the 
prophets and teachers at Antioch conferred miraculous 
powers upon Paul and Barnabas. These prophets and 
teachers were themselves miraculously gifted, and we can 
see no reason why they could not confer certain measures 
and powers of the Holy Spirit through the wisdom and 
power of God upon others. There were many different 
measures and powers of the Holy Spirit in the church in 
those days, and the same men had different measures at 
different times. 

Hence, while Paul was inspired to preach the gospel from 
the time of his conversion, there is no evidence that he had 
that measure of the Spirit that would enable him to per- 
form miracles until hands were laid on him at Antioch by 
the prophets and teachers. But immediately after this he 
possessed and exercised this power. Indeed, so far as the 
New Testament record shows, Paul received his inspiration 
to preach the gospel at the first by the laying on of the 
hands of Ananias, who was not an apostle. When An- 
anias approached Saul at Damascus, having been sent to 
him by the Lord, he said to him : "Brother Saul, the Lord, 
even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou 
earnest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, 
and be filled with the Holy Ghost." (Acts 9: 17.) Here 
are two things mentioned to Saul that were to be accom- 
plished by the visit of Ananias to him. One was that he 
might receive his sight, and the other was that he might be 
filled with the Holy Ghost. The one was as much the ob- 
ject of the coming of Ananias to him as the other. And we 
know that the one first named was accomplished. He re- 
ceived his sight, and this was accomplished through the 
laying on of the hands of Ananias, as we learn from Acts 
9 : 12. This much, then, we know : that through the laying 
on of the hands of Ananias, Paul received sight miracu- 
lously. Something like scales fell at once and by miracu- 
lous power from his eyes. Ananias did, therefore, work 
miraculous power upon Saul. Now add to this the fact 
that Ananias was sent to him that he might also be filled 
with the Holy Ghost, and the conclusion is almost inevitable 
that the Holy Spirit at the first was conferred upon Paul by 
the laying on of the hands of Ananias. There is no other 
natural application for the passage. By the vision that 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 273 

Paul saw before Ananias was sent to him he was to re- 
ceive his sight by the laying on of that man's hands. He 
did receive his sight thus, and the whole passage shows 
that he received the Holy Spirit the same way. "The Lord 
. . . hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, 
and [that thou mightest] be filled with the Holy Ghost." 

To us there is nothing in all the Bible more natural than 
that Paul received his inspiration at the first through the 
laying on of the hands of Ananias. This truth established, 
and it is clear enough that an additional measure or power 
of the Holy Spirit was conferred upon Paul by the laying 
on of the hands of those prophets and teachers at Antioch. 
And then it is just as natural to conclude that a miraculous 
gift was conferred upon Timothy with the laying on of 
hands of the presbytery. These conclusions are not only 
scriptural, but most natural applications of the word of 
God. But, on the other hand, it is unnatural and unscrip- 
tural to assume that those elders could and did confer an 
office as a gift upon Timothy. Why should it be more dif- 
ficult for a man not an apostle to confer miraculous power 
than to work a miracle, as in the case of Ananias? He 
wrought a miracle when he restored Saul to sight; and he 
could certainly with equal ease confer the Holy Spirit, and 
so might those at Antioch upon Paul and Barnabas, and so 
might the elders upon Timothy. 

Such are our conclusions upon this subject from a careful 
study of the word of God. E. G. S. 

GIFTS, DO MIRACULOUS, STILL EXIST? 

Brother Sewell: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate 
whether the gifts in 1 Cor. 12 are done away with. We have some 
Methodists here who say they are not done away. I told them they 
have been done away ever since God gave us his word. Please give 
me chapter and verse to show that they have ceased. 

The gifts mentioned in the chapter referred to were all 
miraculous and have certainly ceased, as there are no men 
on earth now that can do the miracles those men did. 
Those gifts endowed men with power to speak with tongues, 
to interpret tongues, translate languages. They could work 
miracles, heal the sick, prophesy, discern spirits, and such 
like. But none can do these things now; nor have there 
been any that could do these things since the first, or mi- 
raculous, age of the church. Before the New Testament 
was given the teaching had to be done orally; and as the 
apostles could not be everywhere to teach the churches, 
these miraculous gifts were to supply the churches with 
such teaching as they needed till everything should be re- 



274 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

vealed and put on record. Paul says that when Christ had 
ascended, "he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; 
and some, evangelists; and some, pastors [shepherds] and 
teachers." (Eph. 4: 11.) He also tells what these were 
given for; and these gifts include those mentioned in the 
above. They were to be "for the perfecting of the saints, 
for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body 
of Christ." (Verse 12.) 

Next he indicates how long these miraculous gifts were 
to last — "till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of 
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto 
the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." 
(Verse 13.) So these miraculous gifts continued till the 
fullness of Christianity was revealed and written down so 
as to furnish everything needed for the full development, 
the edification, of the church. They were then no longer 
needed. Paul also shows that these miraculous gifts — such 
as prophecy, speaking with tongues, and such like — were 
to cease, in the following: "Charity never faileth: but 
whether there be prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there 
be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, 
it shall vanish away." (1 Cor. 13: 8.) This does not 
mean that prophecies already given should fail to be ful- 
filled or that knowledge of things divine should cease to 
exist, but that the power to prophesy, or to know things 
without learning them, as inspired men did, should cease. 
They have ceased. The man, therefore, that claims they 
have not ceased must prove their continuance by doing the 
miracles. No man's ipse dixit alone is any evidence in the 
case. 

GOD, SEEING, "FACE TO FACE." 

Please explain the seeming contradiction in the reading of the 
following passages of scripture: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, 
Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they saw 
the God of Israel." (Ex. 24: 9, 10.) "And Jacob called the name of 
the place Peniel : for I have seen God face to face, and my life is pre- 
served." (Gen. 32: 30.) "No man hath seen God at any time." (1 
John 4: 12.) I come to you in order to get your views on the sub- 
ject, for, as a general thing, I am well pleased with your explana- 
tions of difficult passages of Scripture. I have drawn a conclusion 
from these passages of Scripture that may be wrong, and I wish to 
get right. 

When Jacob is represented as saying he saw God, it was 
only an angel of God that appeared to him in the form of a 
man. In Hosea it is called an angel; so that in that case 
Jacob did not see the face of God at all, but only an angel 
of God. And when Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu went 
up into the mountain, when it is said they saw God, they 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 275 

saw the glorious manifestation of God in some form, but not 
his full form and face; for Moses afterwards desired God 
to show him his glory, and he would not, "for," said he, 
"there shall no man see me, and live;" but God did permit 
Moses to see his back parts, but not his face. (Ex. 33.) 
And when Moses is represented as talking with God face to 
face, it can only mean that God was present in his power 
and glory, but not that Moses saw his face. When John 
says, "No man hath seen God at any time," he means in the 
sense that Moses wanted to see him, when God said: 
"There shall no man see me, and live." So that there is no 
contradiction in these passages, nor others of like import. 

E. G. S. 

GOLD, WEARING. 

We have been asked to write something on the subject of 
wearing gold, jewelry, and such like. The question keeps 
coming up again and again: Is it wrong to wear jewelry, 
or to wear gold in any way? 

Here are the passages that occasion the trouble on this 
subject: "In like manner also, that women adorn them- 
selves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobri- 
ety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly ar- 
ray; but (which becometh women professing godliness) 
with good works." (1 Tim. 2: 9, 10.) "Likewise, ye 
wives, be in subjection to your own husbands ; that, if any 
obey not the word, they may also without the word be won 
by the conversation of the wives; while they behold your 
chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning 
let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and 
of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel ; but let it be 
the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corrupti- 
ble, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is 
in the sight of God of great price." (1 Pet. 3 : 1-4.) These 
are the passages directly and especially bearing upon the sub- 
ject. I do not see how language could be plainer or stronger 
on any subject than the above language is regarding the 
wearing of gold, plaiting the hair, or any sort of extrava- 
gance in dress to make a show or display before the eyes of 
the world. Women are here required to adorn themselves in 
modest apparel — "not with broided [braided] hair, or gold, 
or pearls, or costly array." I do not know how to modify 
this language so as to make it mean any less than it ex- 
presses ; in fact, I am afraid to try. 

It is a very dangerous thing to tamper with the word of 
God and weaken its force. Thousands of religious people 
have been for years and years destroying the force and im- 



276 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

portance of baptism by telling the people that it is "a non- 
essential" and that "people can go to heaven as well without 
it as with it." And yet everybody knows that God com- 
mands it ; that Jesus said, "Except a man be born of water 
and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God ;" 
that Peter, speaking by the Holy Spirit to the house of 
Cornelius, "commanded them to be baptized." And yet 
there are people to-day that would be horrified at the idea 
of refusing or speaking lightly of baptism who will wear 
gold and pearls and diamonds without the least apparent 
compunction of conscience. But who will try to show that 
baptism is any more positively required than gold and 
pearls and costly array are forbidden? I am sure I will 
not ; I am afraid to do so. I have heard and seen so much 
disregard of positive declarations of the word of God that 
I shudder for the result to those who do it. 

Paul, when writing by inspiration, said: "But I suffer 
not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man." 
But men and women just brush Paul out of the way and 
run right over him, as though God had never spoken 
through him. Hence, women are in pulpits all over the 
land to-day, and men encourage them in it. Men and 
women may brush Paul and Peter out of the way in this 
life and may go their own way here ; but when it comes to 
brushing Christ out of the way when they stand before 
him in judgment, they will find that a very different thing. 
God lets men go their own way in this life. If they want 
to disregard his word, he lets them do it. But he will not 
let them off when they stand before the judgment seat. 

I know it is the common course of religious people to dis- 
regard the above passages regarding the wearing of gold 
and other expensive jewelry for show and to gratify the 
vain desires of a fleshly mind. There is enough of jew- 
elry worn to-day by church members — jewelry of gold and 
pearls and precious stones — to send the gospel to all the 
nations of the earth, if they would turn it into that chan- 
nel ; and if God does not hold them responsible for such dis- 
regard of his holy word, I have read the Bible to little ad- 
vantage. It does not require a Solomon to understand the 
above passages on this subject; nor does it require a knowl- 
edge of Greek and Hebrew. Any one that can understand 
plain English when he reads or hears it can understand 
these passages. They are as plain as words can express 
anything. "Whose adorning let it not be that outward 
adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or 
of putting on of apparel." This language needs no inter- 
pretation. The word apparel here, being in immediate 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 277 

connection with plaiting the hair and the wearing of gold, 
means such apparel as is ranked with the wearing of gold — 
apparel not worn for its usefulness, but for display, for 
vain show, thus evincing that all kinds of apparel just worn 
to make a show, and not for useful service, is forbidden to 
the Lord's people. Plain, serviceable, and modest apparel 
is not at all forbidden in these passages nor in any other 
passage in the Christian Scriptures. There may be, and 
doubtless are, some things concerning which it will be diffi- 
cult to draw the lines and determine just how far we may 
go and just where we must stop ; but these passages are 
not of that character ; they plainly specify gold and pearls 
and costly array and plaiting the hair. There can be no 
mistake as to what these things are and no mistake as to 
the fact that they are forbidden; and because that in the 
varied articles of dress there come up things about which 
it may be difficult to determine where to draw the line is 
no reason why Christians should not discard these plainly 
expressed articles and kinds of dress. There is no excuse 
for mistaking these. And there is also a safe rule re- 
garding things that are doubtful, and that is to let doubtful 
things alone. Whenever we are doubtful as to whether a 
certain article or kind of apparel is condemned by such 
passages as the above or not, then it is perfectly safe to let 
it alone. Nothing can be lost by acting upon this princi- 
ple. If it be doubtful whether wearing silks and satins is 
right or not, we know it is safe to let them alone ; and so of 
everything else that may come up. There is always a safe 
side, if we are only willing to take it. But here is where 
the trouble comes in. People are not always willing to 
take the safe side when they see it. Almost the whole reli- 
gious world knows that immersion as the action of baptism 
is perfectly safe, and that there is nothing to risk in a 
proper subject being immersed instead of accepting sprin- 
kling or pouring; but there are thousands and tens of 
thousands that are not willing to accept it. All Christian 
women know that it would be safe to accept and act upon 
the plain letter of the law that Paul lays down against 
women speaking in public in the church, or preaching. 
There could be no mistake here. But the trouble is, there 
are very many women — and men, too — that are not willing 
to submit to it. And so it is about wearing gold and pearls, 
precious stones, and extravagant or costly array for mere 
show. They are not willing to practice in these matters 
what they know is safe. Immersion is no more plainly 
taught and required in the word of God than the wearing 
of gold and such like things are forbidden; and if it is not 



278 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

about as dangerous to disregard the one as the other, I can- 
not see why. 

The perverseness of the human heart is the only difficulty 
about going to heaven. God has pointed out the way that 
leads to heaven plainly enough for all to understand it. 
Hence the conclusion of the whole matter is that whosoever 
will may be saved here and hereafter, may enter in at last 
through the gates into the city. The way is plain enough, 
if only the people would be willing to walk therein. But 
for Christians to continue wearing their gold and pearls 
and costly array, while thousands around them and to the 
ends of the earth are ignorant of the gospel plan of salva- 
tion, is entirely out of harmony with the spirit of Christ. 

But this is only a part of the evil. The Christian that 
disregards these plain passages of God's word that forbid 
the wearing of gold and pearls and costly array is culti- 
vating and practicing a spirit of insubordination and of 
vanity and pride that is thoroughly out of harmony with 
the spirit of Christ — that spirit of humility and self-denial 
which alone can prepare people for the society of Christ 
and the angels and of all the blood-washed throng that shall 
people the eternal city of God. And this short life is the 
only time given us in which to prepare for the enjoyment 
of that eternal home of the soul. We, therefore, have no 
time to lose and cannot afford to take any risks. Let it be 
our meat and drink to faithfully do whatever the Lord 
would have us do here, and he will give us all he has prom- 
ised in the "sweet by and by." E. G. S. 

GOLD, WEARING, AS AN ORNAMENT. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please tell me if it is scriptural to wear rings, 
watches, lockets, bracelets, and gold-rim spectacles. 

Paul says : "In like manner, that women adorn themselves 
in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not 
with braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment; 
but (which becometh women professing godliness) through 
good works." (1 Tim. 2: 9, 10.) Peter says: "Whose 
adorning let it not be the outward adorning of braiding the 
hair, and of wearing jewels of gold, or of putting on ap- 
parel ; but let it be the hidden man of the heart, in the in- 
corruptible apparel of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in 
the sight of God of great price." (1 Pet. 3: 3, 4.) I do 
not see how any one can fail to see that wearing gold as an 
ornament is forbidden. I do not know how nor do I have 
any desire to explain the prohibition away. I think it a 
mark of reckless folly for any one to disregard the com- 
mand of God for the little gratification of pride found in the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 279 

wearing of a little gold. There are, doubtless, uses for 
which gold serves a better purpose than anything else; 
but when used as an ornament, it is a sin, because it violates 
the law of God. 

"GOLD, SILVER, PRECIOUS STONES," MEANING OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 1 Cor. 3: 11-15 
through the Gospel Advocate. It reads as follows: "For other foun- 
dation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now 
if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, 
wood, hay, stubble; every man's work shall be made manifest: for the 
day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire 
shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work 
abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If 
any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself 
shall be saved; yet so as by fire." What is meant by the terms gold, 
silver, etc.? In what way are they to receive a reward, and in what 
way to suffer loss and be himself saved? What is meant by this 
reward and loss? 

To understand the passage, we must first have a clear 
understanding of the building spoken of and of the material 
that is built upon the foundation. The building that is to 
be built upon the one foundation is the church of God. The 
materials of which the building is to be composed are hu- 
man beings. The one who preaches the gospel and brings 
men into the church is the builder. When those who are 
brought into the church, builded upon the foundation, hold 
out in the service and are faithful in the cause, they are 
represented by the gold, silver, precious stones; but those 
who come in and then do no good, do not live the Christian, 
are represented by the wood, hay, and stubble; for by the 
fiery trials of life they are carried back into the world and 
will be eternally ruined in the world to come; while the 
pure and the good, represented by the gold, etc., will be eter- 
nally saved. For the faithful material the builder will be 
rewarded. "And they that be wise shall shine as the 
brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to 
righteousness as the stars forever and ever." (Dan. 12: 
3.) But in the case of those who turn back and are lost 
the builder loses his labor on them ; but the builder will not 
be lost himself because his converts may be; on the other 
hand, if faithful, he will be saved. But the preacher, the 
builder, must be faithful himself or he will not be saved. 
He will have the same sort of trials to pass through that 
his converts have ; but if he be faithful, a crown of life will 
be his, though all his converts be lost. E. G. S. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 1 Cor. 3: 12, 13. 
What does the gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble repre- 
sent? Were they intended to represent truth and error or the mate- 
rial of which the kingdom is composed? 



280 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The wood, hay, and stubble represent bad material built 
upon the one foundation that bear no fruit to perfection 
and will be turned back by the trials of life and be lost ; but 
the gold, silver, and precious stones represent converts 
that will hold out to the end and be saved. 

GOSPELS, DO THE, BELONG TO THE OLD TESTA- 
MENT? 

Brother Sewell: Please answer through the Gospel Advocate the 
following question : Do the first four books of the New Testament, 
properly placed, belong to the Old Testament? 

These books do not belong to the Old Testament. It is 
true that the events recorded in these four books very 
largely occurred during the existence of the old covenant, 
and that very many of the things recorded in these books 
are the fulfillment of prophecies found in the Old Testa- 
ment ; but instead of belonging to or being any part of that 
book, they give the preparatory state of the new covenant, 
which is something entirely different from the old covenant. 
The old dispensation lasted from Moses to the death of 
Christ, and was then taken out of the way. These first 
four books of the New Testament begin with the birth of 
John the Baptist and of Christ, and they briefly give the 
preaching of John and its results, how Jesus was introduced 
to Israel through the ministry of John, and a people made 
ready for him. Then come the life and teaching of Jesus 
up to his death, the wonderful plan of salvation he pro- 
vided for men, and the final commission of Christ to his 
apostles ; then his ascension comes as the closing part of 
the preparatory work and the time when the kingdom of 
Christ should be established on earth. Acts of the Apos- 
tles then comes in and goes right on with the history of the 
establishment of the church, and how people enter into it; 
then the letters of the apostles to the churches give the 
practical working of the kingdom. So the first four books 
make up a very important part of the New Testament. 

GRACE, CAN ONE FALL FROM? 

Brother Sewell: If one has been baptized into Christ, as we ex- 
press it, can he fall from grace? Please explain Heb. 6: 4-6. 

Most assuredly he can. It is not only true that he can, 
but it is needful for him to watch and pray at all times to 
keep from falling. Paul wrote to the Galatians that if they 
received circumcision, Christ would profit them nothing; 
that they were fallen from grace. They could not fall from 
grace if they had not been in grace. There were tempta- 
tions thrown around them to lead them to do the very thing 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 281 

that would separate them from Christ, and Paul gave them 
this solemn warning lest they should do so. (Gal. 5: 2-4.) 
Then Peter also speaks of some who he said had forsaken 
the right way, which none can do without having been in 
the right way. Peter also says: "For it were better for 
them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, 
after knowing it, to turn back from the holy commandment 
delivered unto them." (2 Pet. 2: 21.) The Holy Spirit 
would not give such warnings if there were no danger of 
doing such a thing. Especially such thing would not be 
said if such a thing were impossible. But he makes it still 
stronger : "It is happened unto them according to the true 
proverb, The dog turneth to his own vomit again, and the 
sow that had washed to wallowing in the mire." (Verse 
22.) These passages show that some have fallen, and not 
only that others may do so, but that there is great danger 
of such a thing. There are very many examples through- 
out the whole Bible of people who were faithful servants of 
God for a time, and then completely fell away from him. 
And the passage in Hebrews teaches that when men who 
have embraced and enjoyed the right way, and then fall 
away from the right, willingly and knowingly, they put 
themselves beyond the reach of mercy. Christ is the only 
Savior; and when men disregard him, deliberately refuse 
him, turn from him, there is no other sacrifice to be made 
for them and their case is hopeless. This passage does not 
comprehend making blunders and mistakes through the 
weakness of the flesh. This sort of sins can be repented of 
and be forgiven. But the kind of sin spoken of in this 
passage is a complete, deliberate giving up Christ after 
having learned him and received him, having obeyed him 
and rejoiced in him for a time, then deliberately rejecting 
him as their Savior, falling away from him. When people 
do this way, their last ray of hope is gone and they are un- 
done forever. 

GRACE AND WORKS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please explain Rom. 11: 
6, which reads thus: "And if by grace, then it is no more of works: 
otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no 
more grace: otherwise work is no more work." 

The connection taken with the verse explains the one 
mentioned. Paul was speaking of the rejection of the Jews 
as a nation, because they rejected the gospel of Christ, 
which is God's plan of grace for saving men ; and while the 
masses of the Jews had thus been cast off, some of them had 
received the gospel and were among the saved. Hence in 



282 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

verse 5 we have, "Even so then at this present time also 
there is a remnant according to the election of grace" — that 
is, the election of the gospel. In the days of Elijah, when 
he thought all Israel had gone off into idolatry, the Lord 
told him there were seven thousand men among them that 
had not bowed the knee to the image of Baal ; and so in the 
time of Paul there was a remnant, a few of the Jews, that 
received the gospel; and all who did embrace the gospel 
were elected by it, and their salvation was by grace, and 
not by the works of the law of Moses. Hence he says in 
verse 6, "And if by grace, then it is no more of works" — 
that is, the works of the law; for if they could still have 
been saved by the works of the law after the gospel came, 
then the gospel could not have been God's only plan of grace, 
favor, by which to save men. But since the gospel is 
God's only plan of grace to save men, the works of the law, 
since it has been taken away, can have nothing to do in the 
matter. It is no longer God's work. The apostle goes on 
in the verses that follow explaining still further the same 
matter. He intended to show that the only chance for the 
salvation of the Jews was through the gospel of the grace of 
God, and that the works of the law had had their day and 
were brought to an end. E. G. S. 

GRIEVANCES, ADJUSTING. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We want your views, with Scrip- 
ture references, on the following: In order that you may have a cor- 
rect idea of it, I will call the congregations Nos. 1 and 2. A brother 
at each one of these had trouble. The brother at No. 1 claimed that 
he had been wickedly treated by the one at, No. 2. He saw several 
of the brethren at No. 2; made his complaints to them, and asked 
them to see their brother and talk to him about it. It went on for 
some months. They then said they were afraid to talk to him. Then 
the brother at No. 1 complained to the brethren there. They told him 
they thought he ought to report to No. 2. He then went to see the 
brother of No. 2 and told him he wanted the matter settled; and if 
they could not settle it between themselves, he was willing to leave 
it to the congregation at No. 2, or that he might select three of the 
members himself or three men from anywhere, and whatever they 
said he would abide by their decision ; but the brother of No. 2 refused 
to settle it in any way. He then got one of the brothers at No. 1 
to go to No. 2 and lay in his complaints and to ask them to order an 
investigation, and he would attend any time they would set; but they 
refused to have anything to do with it on account of their belonging 
to separate congregations. Then the brother of No. 1 wrote to the 
congregation of No. 2, stating to them that he had been very wickedly 
treated by their brother, and asked them to inquire into it and advise 
them, if no more. We want to know what is the duty of No. 2 in 
this case, if the brother at No. 1 is willing to go to No. 2 for an in- 
vestigation. Has not the congregation of No. 2 the right to call up 
their brother and investigate the trouble; and if they fail to do this, 
have they not neglected their duty? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 283 

There were several wrong steps taken in the above. It 
was an improper step for the aggrieved brother to go first 
to the congregations to make complaint to them. The law 
as given by the Savior is: "If thy brother shall trespass 
against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and 
him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy 
brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee 
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to 
hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear 
the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a 
publican/' (Matt. 18 : 15-17.) The offended brother should 
have taken these steps carefully; and if the first two had 
failed, then, with the two or three that went with him to 
see the offender, he should have gone and reported the 
whole matter to the congregation of which the offender was 
a member, and it would then have been the duty of that con- 
gregation to have examined into the matter and to have 
seen that justice was done to all parties. 

Vast trouble might often be saved if all would read the 
Bible and closely follow its directions. All Christians on 
earth constitute one great brotherhood, one great family, 
and should mutually guard each other's welfare, both as 
congregations and individuals; and when the proper steps 
have been taken to bring matters up, one congregation 
should always look into the complaints of another. There 
is no boundary line between congregations to prevent them 
from properly considering all practical questions presented 
by one to another; but such things should always be prop- 
erly presented and everything done according to the word 
of God. There is, perhaps, no one thing more neglected 
among Christians than the first steps the Lord directs to 
be taken by individuals before bringing them before the 
church. Most men want to bring all their matters at once 
to the church and throw all the responsibility of settling 
difficulties upon the congregations. Members should never 
intrude their private difficulties upon the congregations till 
they have taken all scriptural steps themselves. Many 
congregations have been divided and broken up by attempt- 
ing to settle difficulties that should have been settled with- 
out being brought to the church at all. E. G. S. 

GUILE, MEANING OF. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please give us some light on the word guile 
as found in Ps. 32: 2; 34: 13; 55: 11; John 1: 47; 1 Thess. 2: 3; 1 
Pet. 2: 1, 22; 3: 10; Rev. 14: 5. Members of the church at Dixon 
Springs, Tenn., say that the word guile is not here used in the sense 



284 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of sin, or wickedness; so I want you to give through the Gospel Ad- 
vocate the true definition of the word. 

Webster defines guile thus: "Craft, deceitful cunning, 
artifice, duplicity, wile, deceit ; used usually in a bad sense." 
This shows that it is sometimes used in a sense not bad. 
All craft, cunning, is not bad or used for bad ends, though 
it is most frequently used in that sense. When Paul claimed 
to be a Pharisee and turned the wrath of the Pharisees and 
Sadducees away from him and against each other, he used 
craft, or guile, in protecting himself; but I do not think 
there was any wrong in it. If two fierce dogs were after 
me and I could divert their attention from me by making 
them fight each other over a piece of meat, I would use 
guile, or craft, or cunning, or artifice, in doing it ; but this 
would be no sin. The seventh-day observers lay great 
stress on the apostles' attending the synagogue and preach- 
ing on the Sabbath to prove that it is the proper day to 
observe. In discussion with one on a Sunday afternoon I 
asked him if they had preaching that morning: He said: 
"Yes." I then asked: "Will you have preaching again to- 
night?" "Yes, sir," he replied. I then asked him how 
many times he had services on Saturday, or the Sabbath. 
He replied : "Only once." I then said : "It is singular that — 
if you believe Saturday, instead of Sunday, the proper day 
for worship — you should meet for worship on Sunday so 
much oftener than on Saturday." He said: "We do it be- 
cause the people are accustomed to meet on Sunday and 
turn out to hear so much better than on Saturday." I had 
used guile, or craft, or cunning, to make him answer his 
own argument why the apostles met on the Sabbath to teach 
the people — because they could get a hearing that day. 
Every time we set a trap with bait to entice an animal into 
it we practice guile. Is it always sinful? I think not. 
Yet the word guile is used generally, as the dictionary says, 
in an evil sense ; and while I have not examined, it may be 
so used in all the other passages referred to. Many think 
that 2 Cor. 12: 16 means: My enemies say that I was 
crafty and caught you with guile. Believing, as I do, that 
there is a good sense in which the terms crafty and guile 
are used, I see no necessity for straining the language to 
mean this. 

GUILE, MEANING OF "CAUGHT YOU WITH." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 2 Cor. 12: 16, 
which reads thus: "But be it so, I did not burden you: nevertheless, 
being crafty, I caught you with guile." What is meant by not being 
burdensome and being crafty? What is meant by being caught with 
guile? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 285 

By not being burdensome the apostle meant that he did 
not call on them to support him, which as an apostle he 
might have done. In the matter of being crafty and catch- 
ing them with guile, there seems to be an ellipsis — some- 
thing left out. It is something his enemies there said of 
him, making the impression that though when there in per- 
son he exacted nothing from them, but went off himself, as 
though he was very liberal and wanted nothing, but after- 
wards sent others back after gifts, thereby taking advan- 
tage of them in a sharp, penurious sort of way that they 
called guile, or deception, pretending when there that he 
wanted nothing, but sent others back for it. Hence, in 
the very next verse, he asks : "Did I make a gain of you by 
any of them whom I sent unto you?" This indicates that 
the crafty and guile part of it was an accusation against 
him and he was defending himself from the charge. 

HANDS, LAYING ON. 

Brother Lipscomb: I want to ask you a few questions relative to 
certain scriptures. Among the last words of our Savior to his apos- 
tles were these: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature." (Mark 16: 15.) Does this mean that men now 
shall go and preach the gospel to every creature as did the apostles? 
Has any man authority from the word of God to lay hands on any 
man to prepare him for any office in the church? Did the laying on 
of hands apply to the apostolic age only? If our Lord intended the 
laying on of hands to continue in the church through all time, why 
did not the apostles command one or more of the disciples to pray 
and lay hands on the seven deacons at Jerusalem? (Acts 6:6.) I 
have been reading the Gospel Advocate since the Gospel Echo sus- 
pended publication, and I consider it one of the best papers published 
by the. disciples. Its editors appear to be men full of faith and love 
to God and man, and those who write for it seem to be men of great 
zeal for the glory of God and the salvation of mankind. We need to 
keep daily before our minds the very fervent desire of the apostle 
Paul: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions 
among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind 
and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1: 10.) I am often afraid to 
lend the Advocate to friends for fear they will see the very different 
views our brethren take on the same subject. This ought not to be. 
Peter says: "Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is 
of any private interpretation." (2 Pet. 1: 20.) We ought to exam- 
ine the Scriptures very minutely before we disagree on the plain 
testimony of our Lord Jesus Christ. 

We know of but one way to reach unity on Scripture 
teaching — for each to state how he sees it from his view- 
point, and by a kindly comparison of the impression of 
each to seek the true ground. This is the way they sought 
and gained unity in apostolic times and in which we come 
to agreement in other matters now. Unity in error may 



286 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

be maintained by the suppression of investigation and dis- 
cussion; Rome and the sects maintain unity in this way; 
but in free discussion truth is gained and unity in truth 
is maintained. This is the only unity pleasing to God. 
The division on the subjects of laying on of hands is not 
widely extended. A few brethren who think they learned all 
the truth when young and refuse to review the positions 
hold to the sectarian idea. But the brethren are almost a 
unit in rejecting it as an ordaining process. As I recall 
it, I never saw hands laid on persons but once among dis- 
ciples. I see from Professor McGarvey it is almost wholly 
neglected among those with whom he is associated. Some 
think Brother Fanning started the opposition to the prac- 
tice, but many rejected it before he did. Brother P. S. Fall 
and a number of the pioneer brethren believed from the be- 
ginning that only spiritually endowed persons laid hands 
on others. While there are but few, they are of the elder 
brethren, whom I respect and honor and will not refuse a 
hearing in the Advocate. To make the impression on peo- 
ple that truth can be maintained without investigation and 
discussion is to make a false impression. The sooner it is 
removed, the better. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: For what purpose were hands 
laid on persons in apostolic days of the church? In the organization 
of a congregation, should elders be selected and set apart by fasting, 
prayer, and imposition of hands? Is this the scriptural way of pro- 
cedure now? 

The subject has been discussed at considerable length at 
different times, and we will not attempt any general inves- 
tigation of it now. We will only give some of our conclu- 
sions. We do not understand that hands were ever laid 
upon any one as a part of an ordaining ceremony. In all 
the examples of the New Testament where hands were laid 
on, except two, it is certain that miraculous power was in 
some way exerted in the way of healing or imparting mi- 
raculous power. The two exceptions are Acts 6 and 13 — 
the case of the seven at Jerusalem and of Paul and Barna- 
as at Antioch. And in both these instances miraculous 
powers were exercised by the persons upon whom hands 
were laid, whereas there is no account of their possessing 
or exercising miraculous power before hands were laid on 
them. We, therefore, can see no reason to suppose these 
cases were departures from the general rule. 

The passage in Paul to Timothy we do not understand to 
have reference to ordination at all. It has reference to the 
exercise of discipline, as is shown by the connection. What- 
ever the word ordain may mean, and whatever may have 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 287 

been done in the appointment of the seven and of Paul and 
Barnabas, we do not understand that laying on of hands was 
any part of that appointment. But since in all other cases 
in the New Testament where hands were laid on miraculous 
power was in some way exerted, it is very natural to sup- 
pose that the same thing was done in those cases, and espe- 
cially so when we see that immediately after these events 
miraculous power was exercised by the parties upon whom 
hands were imposed. 

HANDS, GIFT IN TIMOTHY BY LAYING ON. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Paul's first letter to Timothy, 
fourth chapter and fourteenth verse, we find him saying to Timothy: 
"Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by proph- 
ecy, with the laying on of hands of the presbytery." And in his 
second letter he tells him to "stir up the gift of God, which is in thee 
by the putting on of my hands." Was it another and different gift 
that he is speaking of on the second occasion, or was it one and the 
same gift that he is speaking of on both occasions? If it is one 
and the same gift, Paul must have been the presbytery himself. 

There were many spiritual gifts given to men in the first 
age of the church, and the same gifts were sometimes re- 
newed to the same persons, as in the case of the apostles. 
They were filled with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pente- 
cost; and then in Acts 4, where they prayed to God, the 
place where they were was shaken, and they were all filled 
with the Holy Spirit and "spake the word of God with bold- 
ness." We, therefore, think that Timothy received two 
different gifts, or that the same one was renewed, or given 
a second time. In the two mentions made of the matter by 
Paul the circumstances are different. The first time he 
speaks of the gift given by prophecy, with the laying on 
of the hands of the presbytery ; in the second place, he says 
the gift of which he was then speaking was given by the 
laying on his own hands. And from this decided differ- 
ence in presenting the matter we are satisfied there were 
two gifts given Timothy. He had an extensive work to 
perform, and it is reasonable that he needed more spiritual 
gifts than one, and that Paul spoke of one of them in his 
first, connecting it with the laying on of the hands of the 
presbytery so he would understand it, and the other by 
laying on his own hands so he would readily understand 
that. 

HAND, THE OFFENDING. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give me some light on 
Mark 9: 43-47. Verse 34 reads: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it 
off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two 
hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched." 
Does this mean the literal hand or eye? 



288 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

In the above passage the Savior represents the lusts and 
desires of the mind by the members of the body, since the 
body is the servant of the mind, to carry out by its different 
members the wishes of the mind. "If thy right hand offend 
thee [that is, cause thee to offend or do wrong], cut it off, 
and cast it from thee" — that is, if any lust, appetite, or, de- 
sire of the mind would lead you astray, would cause you 
to do wrong, then you must mortify, put to death, cut off, 
that desire, though it may seem as dear to you as a right 
hand or a right eye. A man had better cut it off, or de- 
prive himself of any earthly wish, no matter how dear it 
may be to him, than to lose his own soul. Christians must 
closely watch their desires and aspirations and see that they 
shall not be inconsistent with the requirements of the reli- 
gion of Christ. Better miss all earthly and fleshly aspira- 
tions than to be lost in eternity. 

HATING FATHER, MOTHER, ETC. 

Please explain Luke 14: 26: "If any man come to me, and hate 
not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and 
sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." 

The Common Version of the above passage is not a very 
clear expression of the original Greek. The Lord does not 
mean to teach that in order to be a Christian a man must 
hate his father and mother ; but he meant that in order for 
a man to be his disciple he must love him more than he loves 
father or mother, so that if father or mother should inter- 
fere, to hinder him from serving the Lord, he must forsake 
father or mother or any other relations of this life, or even 
life itself, if necessary, in order to be a Christian. The 
matter is made a little plainer in Matt. 10 : 37, 3.8 : "He that 
loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of 
me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is 
not worthy of men. And he that taketh not his cross, and 
followeth after me, is not worthy of me." In this passage 
the Savior had exactly the same principle under consider- 
ation that he did in Luke 14, and the very same principle 
is taught in both places. If the passage in Luke were ren- 
dered in some such way as the following, it would better 
express the Savior's meaning: "If any man come to me, 
and does not love me more than father or mother, he can- 
not be my disciple." Christ meant to teach that his serv- 
ice must be first with men and everything else secondary. 
No man can be a disciple of Christ who allows any earthly 
relationship or consideration, no matter what, to hinder 
him from doing what God has required. A man had better 
lose his own life at any time for Christ's sake than not to 
follow him. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 289 

HEALING, MIRACULOUS. 

Brother Sew ell: Under the head of "Miraculous Healing," in the 
Gospel Advocate of December 9, in your explanation of James 5: 14, 
15, you say: "The time when this sort of healing was done was in the 
age of miracles, when not only the apostles, but other members of the 
church, were endowed with miraculous power." You also say: 
"These miraculous powers ceased in close connection with the end of 
the apostolic age." But in concluding your article you say: "But 
that does not mean that Christians should not pray for sick people. 
But when they employ the best doctor they can get and do everything 
that can be done to cure them, let Christians all the time pray the 
Lord to prosper their efforts to heal the sick." Now, what is the dif- 
ference between anointing a sick man with oil and offering prayer 
for his recovery, and employing a doctor and praying for the sick 
man's recovery? In each case God is asked for power other than 
that at hand. If we say that James 5 : 14, 15 does not apply now, I 
fail to see how the latter case would differ from the first. Something 
more on this subject from you would be greatly appreciated. 

The difference between anointing with oil in the name 
of the Lord and in employing a physician and praying for 
success in the efforts to heal the sick is just as great as is 
the difference between miraculous healing and ordinary 
healing, is just as great as the difference between feeding 
people by the miraculous enlargement of a few loaves and 
fishes and the ordinary manner of receiving a sufficiency 
of food for all that are to be fed. Christ could create or so 
enlarge a very small amount of food as to make it feed thou- 
sands of hungry people and then have fragments left to ten 
times the original amount. No man has ever done any- 
thing like that since the days of miracles. To get food for 
five thousand hungry men to-day would be a large and ex- 
pensive affair; but Jesus did it in but a moment of time 
and without the cost of a cent of money. That surely is a 
matter of considerable difference. The healing mentioned 
in the passage considered was of divine appointment. Even 
the anointing with oil was to be done "in the name of the 
Lord." You cannot employ a physician in the name of 
the Lord now, for that is not ordered by the Lord. Besides, 
the healing then was a most positive promise: "And the 
prayer of faith shall save the sick." That is just as posi- 
tive and just as certain as "shall be saved." The Greek 
word rendered saved in the passage ordinarily means to 
save; but when it has reference to sick or diseased people, 
Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon says it means "to make 
well, to heal, restore to health." So there is not a more 
positive promise in the Bible than the healing in the pas- 
sage considered. But now you may employ the very best 
doctor you can get and have the very best of men to pray 
for the healing of the people, and with it all they may die. 
The very best Christian farmer you can find may prepare 



290 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the best of soil, plant his crop, and give it the most careful 
cultivation, and connect with his labor the most earnest and 
devotional prayers, and yet a drought or a storm or a 
flood may come and blight and destroy the crop. So it is 
with healing since the days of miracles. But in every- 
thing we undertake to do we must work faithfully, pray, 
and trust ; and if success is best for us, it will be granted. 
But the best-laid plans will sometimes fail ; yet very great 
blessings will sometimes come through these failures. Suc- 
cess would not always be best for us. There is certainly 
a wonderful difference, therefore, between miraculous 
events and the ordinary working of things. 

HEALING, DO GIFTS OF, CONTINUE NOW? 

Brother Lipscomb: From early boyhood I have been taught that 
with or on the death of the apostles all the different gifts, such as 
prophesyings, healings, etc., should cease. If I am wrong, please set 
me right. I see and hear of some remarkable cures being performed 
by prayer in Chicago by a man named Dowie. 

There is no doubt but the miraculous gifts or miraculous 
powers of any and all kinds disappeared when those on 
whom gifts were bestowed in the apostolic age died. None 
have possessed them since. The best evidence is, those 
gifted in the early age left none in doubt as to the posses- 
sion of the gifts. Not even the worst opposers of the apos- 
tles could doubt the reality of the power. None of the 
later claims to this power have been able to convince those 
who doubted as to the power. Only the willing and credu- 
lous believers see these powers. They are never mani- 
fested to the unbelieving to produce faith. The facts ac- 
cord with the teaching of the Bible. 1 Cor. 12 is devoted to 
the teaching concerning these gifts. It concludes by tell- 
ing them : "But covet earnestly the best gifts : and yet show 
I unto you a more excellent way." Chapter 13 tells the 
way that is more excellent than these gifts. The gift of 
tongues, the gift of prophecy, the power to work miracles, 
is nothing without charity. In verse 8 he says: "Charity 
never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall 
fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether 
there be knowledge, it shall vanish away." All these gifts 
shall cease, for we know in part — have partial knowledge — 
and prophesy in part. "But when that [knowledge] which 
is perfect is come, then that [knowledge] which is in part 
shall be done away." In verses 8, 9 he shows the knowl- 
edge whicji is in part is that which pertains to the spiritual 
gifts. The knowledge which is perfect is that which makes 
known the complete will of God in the Scriptures. When 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 291 

that was come, these gifts which supplied temporarily the 
knowledge needed till the will was come passed away. In 
Eph. 4 : 11-13 he tells of the gifts bestowed — tells they were 
for the perfecting of the saints: "Till we all come in the 
unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of 
God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature 
of the fullness of Christ." The word of God perfected is 
the standard of the unity of the faith and of the fullness of 
the stature of Christ; and the early Christians came to it 
when it was completed and perfected, and thoroughly fur- 
nished the man of God unto all things necessary to life and 
godliness. 

There have been no miraculous powers from the comple- 
tion of revelation until this time. , All along the world's 
history there have sprung up now and then men that by 
magnetic powers or some other influence seemed to work 
wonderful cures ; but they are all short-lived and soon are 
forgotten. The persons cured soon fall back into their 
afflicted condition. The apparent cures are short-lived, 
too. There is nothing in the pretense that is solid and per- 
manent. 

HEB. 6: 1-6, MEANING OF. 

We have been asked by a sister to give an explanation of 
Heb. 6 : 1-6. We have often spoken of the meaning of this. 
The first verse or two are the difficult ones. "Leaving the 
principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto per- 
fection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from 
dead works, and of faith toward God." To understand this 
passage, we must remember this letter was written to the 
Hebrews who had been converted from Judaism to Chris- 
tianity. Judaism, or the law of Moses, had been super- 
seded by the law of Christ. The law of Moses was the 
schoolmaster to bring the Jews to Christ. When Christ 
came, the law was done away. The works of the Jewish 
law then became dead works. When the law was done 
away, the works of the law were no longer in force. This 
law could not make the comers thereunto perfect. "For 
the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a bet- 
ter hope did ; by the which we draw nigh unto God." (Heb. 
7: 19.) The Jewish law was the beginning of the doctrine 
of Christ. It could not make perfect. Let us leave it, 
therefore, and go on to perfection in the service of Christ. 
The practice of the Jewish law was the foundation that de- 
manded repentance from the works of the Jewish law, now 
no longer in force, so dead. When they turned from th« 
Jewish law to Christ, the first things were faith in God, the 



292 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

teaching of baptism, laying on of hands in the beginning 
to impart spiritual gifts, resurrection from the dead, and 
eternal judgment. The tendency of these Jews was to go 
back to Judaism and lay again the causes out of which the 
necessity of these things grows. Do not do this ; but hav- 
ing passed out of Judaism by faith in Christ, go on to per- 
fection in him. 

The apostle says, "This will we do, if God permit" — a 
strong assertion that he and the faithful will do it. This 
much is difficult; the rest is plain. If you Jews who have 
become Christians and have been once enlightened by the 
gospel of Christ, have tasted of the blessings bestowed in 
Christ, have been the recipients of the miraculous gifts of 
the Holy Spirit, as these Jewish Christians had done, and 
tasted of the good word' of God and the powers of the world 
to come (they had enjoyed all these things in enjoying the 
miraculous gifts of the Spirit as they had done) — now, if 
after these things you deliberately give up Christ as the 
sacrifice for your sins, in this you crucify him again to 
yourselves afresh and put him to open shame, Those who 
thus turn to Judaism after they have known Christ cannot 
be renewed to repentance. They reject Christ as their sac- 
rifice, and there is no other sacrifice to save them. The 
same idea is presented in Heb. 10: 29. The man who re- 
jects Christ as the Mediator and Savior has no other that 
can save. This is true. When he rejects Christ, it is im- 
possible to renew him to repentance. But neither of these 
passages has the least reference to persons being renewed 
again to repentance who, while believing in Christ, fall 
through temptations into sin. This is too clearly taught in 
many places of the Scriptures for a moment to be doubted. 
This speaks of those who give up Christ. They have no 
other approach to God. D. L. 

HEBREWS, CHAPTER TEN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Heb. 10. 

This chapter is the statement of the failure of the law 
of Moses to take away sins. The law was the shadow of 
the good things to come and could not take the sins away 
once for all. If they had taken them away, they would 
have ceased to offer them for their sins, as was done each 
recurring year. The worshipers, freed from sin, would 
cease to make offerings for them. The blood of these ani- 
mals offered could not take away sin. Therefore, when 
Christ came into the world, he said to God, "Sacrifice and 
offering . . . thou wouldest not;" and as God had 
turned from and rejected these offerings, Jesus came as 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 293 

a high priest — came in the place and became the sacrifice 
that can cleanse from sin, to do the will of God, to take 
away the sacrifices for sin and substitute the Son of God 
that would once for all take away sin. Through this offer- 
ing of Jesus as the one sacrifice God would take away sin 
forever. Jesus, after the offering of himself, sat down on 
the right hand of God, expecting until his enemies are made 
his footstool forever. 

HEARTFELT RELIGION. 

Messrs. Lipscomb and Seivell: I have been a reader of the Gos- 
pel Advocate for a good while, though I do not accede to its opin- 
ions in many things. It is a readable paper, and the Christian Church 
is misrepresented by many. At the same time the Methodist Church, 
of which I have the honor of being a member, is often misrepresented 
in the Advocate. 

You teach that if we repent and believe we must obey the gospel. 
The Methodists teach the same. But while you teach outward ordi- 
nances — water baptism, etc. — we teach God is a Spirit, and that they 
that worship him must worship him in spirit. Circumcision or non- 
circumcision availeth nothing, but the circumcision of the heart. He 
is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but inwardly. The Advocate 
teaches our feelings will not do for a guide. We believe we know 
for ourselves, and not another, whether we are on the Lord's side 
or not. 

You say: "If ye love me, keep my commandments." So do we. 
But this keeping commandments does not consist in meats and drinks. 
"Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To 
visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself 
unspotted from the world." The fruits or feeling of such a life is 
joy and peace in believing in the Holy Ghost. This knowledge of 
Christ in the heart is the acceptance of him as our Savior; and it 
matters not whether in the act of baptism or in the frozen zone of 
the North or on the burning sands of Arabia's desert, the moment 
we accept him as our Savior and believe that God accepts the offer- 
ing for Christ's sake, Christ is formed within, the hope of glory. 

Religion is a spiritual work, an inward work. Here I want to 
say a word in regard to your people. You call yourselves Christians 
and others the denominations, the world, sinners, etc. We are all 
poor sinners; and if saved at all, we are saved alone through grace. 
It is a great thing to say, "I am a Christian." I mean by that word 
that a man must have the evidence or feeling within, and it is our 
privilege to have this if we love mercy, do justly, and walk humbly 
with God. This is the religion we Methodists say is "better felt than 
told." This knowledge enabled the saints in all ages to take up the 
cross and follow Christ. It is this love in the soul that enabled 
mother, while passing death's stormy river, to shout, "Glory!" It is 
this love that enables our friends, while passing death's chilly wave, 
to exclaim, "All is well!" This is what we mean by heartfelt reli- 
gion, or that religion which is "better felt than told." 

Church membership and church ordinances are all well; but we 
may have all these and be a tinkling cymbal. Nothing but charity — 
the love of God in our hearts — will enable us to overcome the world. 

Many "shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the 
north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God" 



294 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who were never known here as 
Christians, but their life was hid with Christ in God. 

Our good Methodist brother fails to comprehend the full 
scope of our teaching. We believe as strongly as the Meth- 
odists do in an earnest, devotional heart religion — a reli- 
gion that gives perfect joy and consolation and that makes 
the possessor cheerful and happy at all times. But we be- 
lieve, at the same time, that all who have this kind of heart 
will go forward and do all the commandments of God with- 
out delay. God says in the last chapter of Isaiah : "To this 
man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite 
spirit, and trembleth at my word." No heart is right that 
does not tremble at God's word and is not always ready 
and anxious to do what the Lord says. Jesus says, when 
explaining the parable of the sower : "But that on the good 
ground are they, which in an honest and good heart, hav- 
ing heard the word, keep it, and bring forth fruit with pa- 
tience." (Luke 8: 15.) This passage tells what kind of a 
heart is a good one; and, in the light of this passage, no 
heart is good that does not strive to keep the word in all 
its requirements. We believe in worshiping God in spirit 
and in truth, but we understand that this means to do what 
the Lord says with a humble heart and an earnest and de- 
votional spirit — a heart moved with love to God and to Je- 
sus, our Lord. 

Peter said to the Christians scattered by persecution: 
"Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth 
through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see 
that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently." 
These Christians had purified their souls in obeying the 
truth, and baptism was one item. (See Acts 2: 38.) 

It takes doing what God says to purify the heart — the 
soul. We believe, therefore, that a pure heart will visit the 
fatherless and widows in their afflictions — will minister to 
their necessities. We do not see how you can make a dif- 
ference between the requirement to feed the hungry and 
the command to be baptized, as to their importance. Both 
commands are given by the same authority and are of 
equal importance in their respective places. No matter 
how good a man's heart may be in his faith and repentance, 
if he then refuses to be baptized, his heart that moment 
ceases to be good and becomes rebellious ; for Christ teaches 
that an honest and good heart will beep the word, which 
means will obey the word. The conduct, the actions, of the 
body must be right, as well as the heart ; and a right heart 
produces right conduct. Christianity embraces the whole 
man — body, soul, and spirit. No man's heart can remain 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 295 

right a single hour after he refuses to obey a single com- 
mand of God. 

We also believe that when a man understands and obeys 
the gospel and gives his heart and life to God by obeying 
the truth, he can intelligently give a reason of the hope 
that is in him ; he can tell why he is happy, and he rejoices 
in hope of the glory of God. We believe in a religion that 
makes men feel well; but we believe doing well, doing the 
requirements of God, is the foundation of good feeling, and 
that no man has a scriptural right to feel well that does not 
do well. Paul was ready to leave the world, because he had 
done well, had fought a good fight, had kept the faith. We 
do not believe there is a happier people on this earth than 
those who believe in and obey the word of God daily and 
faithfully. So there is no difference between us as to en- 
joying religion — heart and soul religion — but only in the 
means of attaining these conditions. We want people to 
obey from the heart the form of doctrine — the gospel of 
Christ — in order to become Christians and rejoice in the re- 
mission of sins; and if they continue to obey God as Chris- 
tians, they may live happy all their lives and die happy. 

If there are to be any exceptions to this rule in cases of 
men in the frozen North or burning South, we leave the 
Lord to make them ; we do not propose to make the excep- 
tions for him. We know we are safe in doing his com- 
mandments from loving, devoted hearts ; and if there is 
safety anywhere else, we have not found it out. When- 
ever you realize that the requirements that make a Chris- 
tian are as important as those by which we live the Chris- 
tian, and that these requirements include baptism, you will 
find no room to differ from any people that love and obey 
the Lord. We do not wish to magnify differences, but to 
lessen them if possible ; and we desire to encourage a free 
expression of religious convictions, and by this means we 
may hasten the time when all lovers of truth shall be one. 

E. G. S. 

HEATHEN, WHAT WILL BECOME OF THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please answer the ques- 
tion as to what will become of the heathen who have never had the 
gospel preached unto them. If it never was, the present generation 
is not to blame for their not having it. Now, will they be held re- 
sponsible for the sins of their fathers in letting the gospel light go 
out? Paul, in Rom. 2: 13, 14, says: "For not the hearers of the law 
are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. For 
when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things 
contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto them- 
selves." How could the law affect them when they have not the law, 
or how could they be a law unto themselves when they knew nothing 



296 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of the law? Also, sin is a transgression of law; and if they knew not 
the law, how could they transgress the law? Also, Paul, in Rom. 10: 
13, 14, says: "For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord 
shall be saved. How then shall they call on him on whom they have 
not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have 
not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher?" The con- 
dition of salvation seems to depend upon calling, and the calling de- 
pends upon being taught; for the apostle says that faith comes by 
hearing the word of God, and in his interrogatory he seems to convey 
the idea that they cannot call without knowledge; and if they had no 
knowledge, they could not be responsible ; and, if so, would they be 
saved? 

We, as a people, contend that our salvation is conditional — that is, 
we are saved by obedience to the law of the gospel. Now, should 
obedience to that law which is unto themselves save? If so, then a 
disobedience will, on the other hand, damn them. 

We have not been able as yet to find anything in the 
Bible that in a direct way answers the question as to what 
will become of the heathen who never hear anything of the 
word of God. It is easy enough to tell what will become of 
those who hear the word of God and obey it, and quite as 
easy to tell the destiny of those who hear the word and re- 
fuse to obey it; but if it be true that the heathen will be 
saved on the score of their ignorance, because they have 
not heard the word of God, then it is certainly very cruel 
to send the Bible to them, unless they will do better with it 
than our own people where we have the Bible ; for it is well 
known that only a few compared with the masses in Bible 
lands obey the Bible in such a way as to secure to them- 
selves the promises of the word of God. And if, therefore, 
the heathen as a mass are to be saved because of their ig- 
norance, then let them alone in their glory, for they are bet- 
ter off by far than people in Bible lands. But from several 
things that Paul says in his letter to the Romans, we hardly 
think it a scriptural conclusion that the heathen are going 
to be saved as they are — in their sins. He shows fully in 
this letter that at the time Christ came all the world, both 
Jews and Gentiles, were regarded sinners. The Gentile 
nations had long since plunged themselves into sin and un- 
belief till they had forgotten all knowledge of the word of 
God, or even the existence of God, while the Jews had dis- 
obeyed their law and become sinners in his sight; so that 
there were none that did good — all were sinners and ex- 
posed to death and ruin. In a word, the whole world was 
in a lost condition when Christ came into the world; and 
we do not suppose the heathen are much better in the sight 
of God now than they were then. 

Concerning the heathen world, Paul uses the following 
language in Rom. 1 : "Because that, when they knew God, 
they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 297 

became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart 
was darkened. . . . Wherefore God gave them up to 
uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dis- 
honor their own bodies between themselves: who chanered 
the truth of God into a lie. and worshined and served the 
creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever. 
. . . And even as they did not like to retain God in 
their knowledge. God gave them over to a renrobate mind, 
to do those thinsrs which are not convenient; being filled 
with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetous- 
ness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, 
malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despite- 
ful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things," etc. This is 
certainly a dark picture. These are the steps through 
which they went into heathenism at the start, and this is 
very much the history of heathenism to-day. And as a de- 
scription of the whole world, including especially the 
heathen, at the coming of Christ, we have the following in 
Rom. 3: "What then? are we better than they? No, in no 
wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, 
that they are all under sin ; as it is written, There is none 
righteous, no, not one: there is none that understandeth, 
there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone 
out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; 
there is none that doeth good, no, not one. Their throat is 
an open sepulcher ; with their tongues they have used de- 
ceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth 
is full of cursing and bitterness : their feet are swift to shed 
blood: destruction and misery are in their ways: and the 
way of peace have they not known." 

These things are a very good representation of heathen- 
ism the world over. They are full of all sorts of wicked- 
ness that the mind of man, aided by Satan himself, can pos- 
sibly devise. This is the character with which the heathen 
live and die. And how does this character comport with 
the character the Christian has to form in order to be 
saved? Even the Christian, to be prepared for heaven, 
has to deny "ungodliness and worldly lusts" and "live so- 
berly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." Now, 
as it takes this sort of righteous, sober, godly character to 
go to heaven, surely the heathen who lives as described 
above— lives in wickedness, deceit, envy, hatred, and every 
abominable way that can be imagined — has rather a poor 
showing. 

The Bible teaches plainly that the character we form in 
this life is the character we will carry into eternity. In 
the last chapter in the Bible we have the following Ian- 



298 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

guage on this subject: "He that is unjust, let him be unjust 
still : and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still ; and he 
that is righteous, let him be righteous still : and he that is 
holy, let him be holy still. And, behold, I come quickly; 
and my reward is with me, to give every man according as 
his work shall be." This certainly means that when a man 
lives and dies a wicked man he will be wicked at the judg- 
ment seat of Christ, while he that lives and dies a righteous 
man will be righteous at the judgment and will receive the 
righteous man's reward. Every man will receive accord- 
ing to his work — his character ; and as the heathen live and 
die in the very dregs of wickedness and folly and come up 
to the judgment with that filthy sort of character, we can 
see nothing very encouraging for their future. To say the 
very best that can be said in behalf of the heathen, the pic- 
ture is a dark one. The character of the heathen is in every 
particular contrary to the character that God proposes to 
save. 

But you ask: "What of those who do by nature the 
things contained in the law?" In reply, we have no idea 
that Paul was speaking of the heathen in the full sense of 
that term. He was arguing with the Jews and showing 
them that, on account of their violation of their law, God 
had rejected them and ceased to regard them as his peculiar 
people, and had established the gospel and extended it to 
all the world, both Jews and Gentiles. And while the law 
was in force, there were Gentiles always living contiguous 
to the Jews, and by their contact with the Jews had learned 
many of the principles of the Jewish law and approved 
them and acted upon them, although perhaps at the time 
they could not have told exactly whence they came, for the 
law of Moses was never given to the Gentiles. In such 
cases, where the Gentiles caught the principles, the things 
contained in the law, and did them, they had by far the ad- 
vantage of the Jews themselves, who had the law and failed 
to live up to it. But we do not believe that Paul intended 
to teach that the heathen, as such, who have no chance to 
hear or see anything concerning the law of God, ever do the 
things contained in the law. If God ever does anything for 
the heathen, it will be by sending them the Bible, the word 
of God, and not by some secret operation upon them; and 
we believe that whenever any heathen nation gets into a 
condition to receive and obey the Bible, God will send it to 
them through the instrumentality of his people. When 
they receive and obey the word of God through the gospel 
of his Son, it is very certain they will then be saved. Be- 
yond this, we cannot say. If God sends his Spirit to work 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 299 

directly and secretly upon the heathen, it will be something 
he never has done in any age, so far as the Bible records. 
Yet this is the plan the religious world generally points out 
upon which they think he will save the heathen. If the 
heathen are saved in their wickedness outside of the Bible, 
that will be wholly the Lord's work, and not ours, and we 
need not trouble ourselves about it. But let us, at the same 
time, do all we can to spread a knowledge of the truth. 
This is our part of the work, for those that Paul speaks of 
did the things contained in the law. But who will contend 
that any of the heathen, who never heard the gospel, do the 
things contained in the gospel? Do any of them believe the 
gospel ? Do they repent ? Are any of them baptized ? Do 
any of them meet on the first day of the week to break 
bread ? Every one knows they do not. Upon what ground 
shall we claim, then, that the heathen will be saved? We 
can see none. But of one thing we are fully satisfied, and 
that is, the Lord will do right with them. If it be right 
that they or any of them should be saved, the Lord will be 
certain to do it, and we need not be uneasy about that. Let 
us do our duty, and all will be right. E. G. S. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will the heathen be saved without the gospel, 
or will he be saved if he is never taught? If not, what does Paul 
mean in Rom. 4: 15 and 5: 13? 

If the heathen were saved without Christ, why should he 
come and die ? Paul says God gave them over to be heath- 
ens, because, when they knew God, they did not glorify him 
as God. "We have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, 
that they are all under sin." (Rom. 3:9.) "There is none 
righteous, no, not one." (Verse 10.) None are righteous, 
save those made so by the blood of Christ. "All have 
sinned, and come short of the glory of God." (Verse 23.) 
"There is none other name under heaven given among men, 
whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4: 12.) I could not 
make it plainer or stronger than these scriptures, with 
many others. The Scriptures (Rom. 4: 15) say: "Where 
no law is, there is no transgression." There are two classes 
of sins in the Bible. Transgress means to go beyond and 
add to the laws of God. Where there is no law, this sin 
cannot exist. From Adam to Moses there was no code of 
divine laws, so no transgression. Yet they sinned and died. 
God gave no law, because they would not hear, and he did 
not cast pearls before swine. Rom. 5: 13 says: "Sin was 
in the world : but sin is not imputed when there is no law." 
"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even 
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of 



300 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Adam's transgression/' (Verse 14.) Adam's transgres- 
sion was setting aside a positive law. From Adam to 
Moses there was no code of laws; so they did not sin as 
Adam did. Yet they were wicked beyond measure ; so God 
destroyed them. The sin of transgressing law was not im- 
puted, but the sin and wickedness prevented God's giving 
law, and they perished without law. (See Gen. 6: 11-13.) 
What is the use of their hearing the gospel if they can be 
saved without it? The gospel does them no good if they 
do not hear it. Why should Jesus have died to save those 
not lost? Simon Peter said: "To whom shall we go? thou 
hast the words of eternal life." (John 6: 68.) "I said 
therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins : for if ye 
believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins." (John 
8: 24.) "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but 
he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath 
not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." 
(John 3: 18.) Jesus came and suffered and died because 
men were lost and ruined. "The wicked shall be turned 
into hell, and all the nations that forget God." (Ps. 9 : 17.) 
The heathen are the nations that forget God, and Rom. 1 : 
21 tells why they are in sin and without the knowledge of 
God: "Because that, when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain 
in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was dark- 
ened." Because they were unwilling to honor God when 
they knew him he withdrew his knowledge from them and 
left them to worship the creature more than the Creator. 

HEATHEN, MEANING OF "AS A HEATHEN MAN AND A 
PUBLICAN/' 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: C used language in regard to D 
which was of a defamatory character. D went to C alone, but C 
failed to satisfy him. D then took with him two brethren, and C 
failed to hear them. The matter was then brought before the church, 
and C refused to hear the church. The church then proceeded to 
withdraw from C, making the constitutional law (Matt. 18: 15-17) 
and the statutory law (2 Thess. 3: 6) the basis of our action. One 
brother in the congregation inclines to the view that "let him be unto 
thee as a heathen man and a publican" means the individual, and not 
the whole congregation. I understand the context to teach that it 
applies to the body collective, because the individual does not possess 
the binding power. This brother says he thinks that in the Greek it 
is in the singular, as in the King James Version {thee), and, there- 
fore, the individual, and not the congregation; yet he should remem- 
ber that collective nouns may be used in the singular. Will you 
please make some remarks upon this? 

When one member of the church trespasses against an- 
other, and when spoken to regarding it refuses to make sat- 
isfaction, he is walking disorderly and in rebellion against 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 301 

God and is dishonoring his cause ; and a congregation that 
intends to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace 
must withdraw from such, both for the good of the church 
and for the good of the one that has done the wrong, that 
he may thereby be influenced to repent and correct the 
wrong. 

As to the fact that the singular number is used, that by no 
means signifies that the thing should end as an individual 
matter. There were a number of disciples present when 
Jesus gave these instructions, and he addressed all of them 
distributively, each one singly and alone, and thus addressed 
every one of them ; and whatever belonged to one belonged 
to all and was as true of every one as of any single indi- 
vidual, and the whole congregation must act in harmony 
with each other. And we understand when Jesus says, "Let 
him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican," he 
means all the members of the congregation except the trans- 
gressor, and he is to be as a heathen and publican to all the 
members ; for in the next verse he puts all of them together 
and says : "Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound 
in heaven," etc. This shows clearly that Jesus was teach- 
ing what was true of the whole congregation, which in- 
cludes every individual member of the body. Whenever a 
congregation, acting upon the word of God, withdraws from 
a member, that action is ratified, is bound or made firm, 
in heaven ; for when the church obeys God, it is simply God 
acting through them and doing the work through their in- 
strumentality. As the church is made up of individuals, 
the same is true of individual members of the church, thus 
acting according to the word of God. The idea that in such 
a case as the above the language, "be unto thee as a heathen 
man and a publican," only has reference to the individual 
personally offended or injured, is at war with every princi- 
ple pertaining to the body of Christ. It would recognize as 
proper and right the keeping of two members in the congre- 
gation, full of malice and hatred toward each other, that 
will not recognize each other as Christians at all. The very 
idea of one Christian regarding another of the same con- 
gregation as a heathen, as wholly destitute of everything 
that makes a man a child of God, is something contrary to 
the whole spirit of the religion of Jesus. 

Paul teaches of the church: "That there should be no 
schism in the body ; but that the members should have the 
same care one for another. And whether one member suf- 
fer, all the members suffer with it ; or one member be hon- 
ored, all the members rejoice with it." (1 Cor. 12 : 25, 26.) 
Now, is it possible for all the members to have the same 



302 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

care one for another, when all are loving each other but 
two, and they regarding each other as a heathen and pub- 
lican ? Every one that will think for a moment must know 
that such a course would break up all harmony and love in 
the church of God. Can the church be one — one in spirit, 
one in work, one in aim and purpose, one as the Father and 
Son are one — while one member or maybe half a dozen are 
regarding as many more as heathens and publicans? For 
if one member may regard another thus and both remain 
in the church, so may all. What sort of a congregation 
would that be — one-half regarding the other half as heath- 
ens and publicans ? Then where would brotherly love come 
in? 

Peter requires that Christians, all Christians, shall add 
to their faith "brotherly kindness," and this command is 
true of every member of the church ; and there is not much 
"brotherly kindness" in regarding a brother, still in the 
church, as a heathen. Again, we, as Christians, are re- 
quired to "let brotherly love continue." We cannot love a 
man as a brother and count him as a heathen at the same 
time. 

Once more. When a member refuses to hear the church, 
he refuses to hear God, who speaks by his word through 
the church when the church acts according to the word of 
God, and no congregation is allowed to retain a member 
that walks disorderly. Paul said: "If any man obey not 
our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no com- 
pany with him, that he may be ashamed." In this pas- 
sage about the same idea is presented as in Matt. 18: 17: 
"Let him be unto thee as a heathen," etc. The one that 
trespasses, therefore, and refuses to hear the church, re- 
fuses to make the matter right, becomes, in the very act of 
refusing the word of God as presented by the church, a 
public transgressor, in addition to his private trespass, 
and should be dealt with accordingly. 

The church of God is bound together by the tender cords 
of love. Love, therefore, and not hatred, must be the rul- 
ing principle. A kingdom or house divided against itself 
must fall. E. G. S. 

HEATHEN, WHOM TO REGARD AS A. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Matt. 18: 15-17. Is the man 
that is trespassed against or the church to regard him as a heathen 
man? Does that connect with 2 Thess. 3: 14? 

It plainly says that the man against whom the trespass 
is committed shall go to the one who committed the trespass 
alone. Then he shall take two or three others. If he fails 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 303 

to hear them, he shall tell it to the church. If he refuses 
to hear the church, "let him be unto thee as a heathen man 
and a publican." The only thing in the matter that can 
be misunderstood is that he says : "Let him be unto thee as a 
heathen man and a publican." I have heard the question 
raised: "Does that apply to the man who was offended 
alone, or to the church?" I never could see how he could 
be unworthy of the association of one man, yet worthy of 
that of all the church, nor how one member could treat him 
as a heathen and the others fellowship him as a brother. 
When he refuses to hear the church, the sin is as much 
against the church as against the man. 

The passage in 2 Thess. 3 : 14 commands the disciples to 
withdraw from every brother that walks disorderly, yet 
to count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a 
brother. While refusing to regard him as walking as an 
orderly Christian should, they are yet to admonish him as a 
brother to return to an orderly walk in the church. I think 
we too often neglect all discipline and then cut a member 
off finally. Discipline consists in admonishing, warning, 
and persuading, taking others with us to do the same; in 
separating them for a time from the fellowship of the 
church, yet continuing to admonish as a brother before the 
final exclusion comes. We misname things. Cutting a 
man off is not discipline ; it is the end and failure of disci- 
pline. The steps taken to save the man is the discipline. 

HEAVEN AND HELL, DEGREES IN. 

Brother Sewell: Please give through the Gospel Advocate your 
views and reasons for such views relative to degrees of reward in 
hell and heaven. Will he that comes in at the eleventh hour receive 
as much as any one else? Will he that does a small amount of good 
receive as much as he that does a great deal of good? 

We have two queries on this subject, and only publish one 
as embracing the ground of both. We have no formulated 
views on this subject, and do not wish to indulge any specu- 
lation in the matter. The word of the Lord plainly shows 
that every man is required to do the will of God to the 
extent of his ability, and whoever does not do so has not the 
promise of eternal life. It is not so much in the amount 
of good as in the ability to do. A man with much ability 
is required to do much, while a man of little ability is only 
required to do what he can. The man of great ability, and 
who does much in the Lord's service, will get no more credit 
from the Lord than the man of small ability, but who is 
faithful to do what he can. I do not understand that Chris- 
tianity is upon the principle of so much reward for so much 



304 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

work, but rather a system of giving the heart and life to 
God in his divine requisitions to the extent of our ability — 
that is, it is the formation of a character on earth that shall 
be suited for the purity of heaven. The pious mother that 
is tied down in her home sphere to her family and home 
duties, and is seldom further away from home than in the 
assembly of the saints, but who is faithful in her duties to 
husband and children for the Lord's sake, and does her part 
faithfully to her husband and home, and is faithful in bring- 
ing up her children in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord, is as much loved by God and Christ and will as cer- 
tainly reach heaven as the faithful preacher of the gospel 
that brings hundreds to the fold of Christ. And this, I 
think, is the real meaning of those passages that speak of 
our being judged by our works. If the same differences of 
capacity that exist here shall exist in heaven, it may be 
that larger capacities may enjoy more extensively the great 
blessings of heaven than those of smaller capacities; but 
even in that case each one's cup of joy will be equally full 
to him, and thus all that reach the heavenly home will be 
equal in these regards. Therefore, if some are able to do 
more than others, it will require that much more to take 
them to heaven. Hence, no one need be uneasy about de- 
grees in heaven. The practical point in the matter with 
us is to serve the Lord faithfully and strive to reach the 
happy home ; and if we get there, our happiness will be com- 
plete. E. G. S. 

HEIRS OF THE LAND OF CANAAN, HOW? 

Please compare and explain Gen. 17: 7, 8 with Gal. 3: 16, 17 
through the Gospel Advocate. Are Christ and Abraham yet heirs 
of the land of Canaan? If not, what is the promise made to Christ? 
(Verse 19.) What are we heirs of as children of Abraham? (Verse 
29.) Please explain in full. 

A covenant is an agreement between two parties. When 
one breaks the covenant, it is broken. One party cannot 
maintain a covenant. When the children of Abraham 
broke the covenant, then it ceased to be of force. They 
forfeited their right under the covenant when they broke 
it. Hence, God took that covenant out of the way and 
made a new covenant. The new covenant was typified by 
the old, and it was made with and confirmed and fulfilled 
by the seed of Abraham — Christ. "I will make a new cov- 
enant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Ju- 
dah: not according to the covenant that I made with their 
fathers : . . . which my covenant they broke, although 
I was a husband unto them, saith the Lord : but this shall be 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 305 

the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; 
After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their 
inward parts, and write it in their hearts ; and will be their 
God, and they shall be my people." (Jer. 31: 31-33.) 
This means none shall enter into that covenant save by a 
spiritual birth, or who do so knowing the law, willingly, 
in contrast with the old entrance into the other covenant 
without volition of their own in a fleshly birth. That 
new covenant was made with and confirmed in Christ, and 
the promise to which we are heirs is the promise of a 
possession of the heavenly Canaan. As each one volun- 
tarily enters the covenant by coming into Christ through 
a hearty acceptance of his law, receiving the law into their 
hearts, so each one for himself continues faithful in that 
covenant and inherits the promise of the heavenly Canaan, 
or each one breaks the covenant for himself and forfeits 
that promise. D. L. 

HELL, GATES OF, PREVAIL AGAINST WHAT? 

Brother Lipscomb : Please answer through the Gospel Advocate 
the following question: What was it (Matt. 16: 18) that the gates of 
hell should not prevail against? 

There has been substantial agreement among students 
of the Bible that Jesus meant the gates of hell should not 
prevail against the church. If the scripture in its context 
alone was looked to, no other interpretation would ever sug- 
gest itself; but the necessities of positions have suggested 
other theories. One of these is that the gates of hell shall not 
prevail against the rock (Christ) on which the church is 
built. This is usually extended to mean that the grave should 
not prevent the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. 
Another theory is: The gates of hell shall not prevail to 
hinder the establishment of the church of Christ. But the 
meaning an unbiased mind would naturally draw from the 
statement is : The gates of hell shall never prevail against 
the church which Jesus Christ said he would build on the 
truth confessed — that he is the Christ, the Son of God. 
The indestructibility of that church is so clearly taught else- 
where that there is no reason for refusing to accept the 
plain, natural meaning of the language here. Of this king- 
dom Daniel says it "shall not be left to other people, but it 
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and 
it shall stand forever." The trouble is that people, in look- 
ing for this kingdom of God in the world, look for a big, 
general, and overshadowing organization. The kingdom of 
God was never to come in this form, nor has it ever existed 
in it. It came without outward show or display; it exists 



306 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

in the humble followers of Christ, without organic display. 
These general organizations are the perversions and cor- 
ruptions of the churches of God. I do not believe there has 
ever been a time when there were not true and humble fol- 
lowers of Christ on earth since the establishment of his 
kingdom, nor do I believe there ever will be. These hum- 
ble followers of Christ, worshiping without display or show, 
constitute the church of God on earth. 

HELL FIRE, MEANING OF. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 3: 10-12: "And now also 
the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which 
bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. 
I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance; but he that cometh 
after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: whose fan is in 
his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, and gather his wheat 
into the garner ; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." 
Does the fire spoken of in these verses mean love, or does the word 
love and that fire come from the same Greek word? Universalists 
say it does, and we do not know. Does the word hell, spoken of in 
Luke 16: 23 ("And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and 
seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom"), mean the grave? 
If it does, are we tormented in the grave? Please give places in the 
Bible where the words Gehenna and Hades occur. Universalists here 
are talking much about there not being any eternal or endless pun- 
ishment after death. Answer through the Gospel Advocate. 

Any man who says the word rendered fire also means 
love has certainly studied Greek to little purpose, or his 
conscience is not very tender on the matter of truth. The 
word fire is from the Greek word pur, which occurs a lit- 
tle over seventy times in the New Testament, and is ren- 
dered fire every time and never even one time rendered 
love. The word just means fire — that is all. The word 
agapee is the word rendered love, or charity, and should be 
always rendered love, as scholars agree; and this word is 
never rendered fire, although it occurs over a hundred times 
in the Greek Testament. So there is not a particle of au- 
thority for ever using these two words interchangeably at 
any time or in any sense. Love never comes from pur, and 
fire never comes from agapee. Fire is not love, and love 
is not fire, and any one who thinks so is deluded. As to 
the word hell, there are three different Greek words ren- 
dered by the word hell in the Common Version. These are 
Gehenna, Hades, and Tartarus. 

The word Gehenna is found twelve times in the Greek 
Testament, always rendered hell and used to signify future 
punishment. Gehenna is the name given to a valley near 
Jerusalem, in which the god Moloch once was worshiped, 
even among the Jews, in which children were burned alive 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 307 

in sacrifice to this imaginary deity ; and this gave the Jews 
a horrible idea of the place. Afterwards all manner of 
filth and dead bodies from the city and round about were 
cast into this valley. And then, to avoid the unhealthful 
and disagreeable odors arising therefrom, fires were kept 
always burning to continually destroy this odor and filth. 
So this word Gehenna, the name of this valley, came to rep- 
resent the place of future punishment of the wicked, and 
is rendered hell on this account. Hence this word prop- 
erly means hell, as rendered. 

The word Hades occurs eleven times in the Greek — ten 
times rendered hell and once grave. (1 Cor. 15: 55.) 
When the rich man died, "in hell [Hades] he lift up his 
eyes." This word Hades perhaps more literally means the 
unseen world, the abode of departed spirits, whether good 
or bad, while other words determine the condition or loca- 
tion of the good and bad. Abraham's bosom, a place of joy, 
represents the location of Lazarus, while the expression, 
"tormented in these flames," gives the location of the rich 
man. 

The word Tartarus, as a noun, is not found in the Greek 
Testament; but the verb tartaroo is found one time (2 Pet. 
2: 4), and is rendered "cast down to hell." The word 
Tartarus means a place of torment in the unseen world. 

Thus Hades means the unseen world, including all the 
dead, both bad and good; while Tartarus and Gehenna 
mean places of torment in Hades; and paradise, or Abra- 
ham's bosom, represents the place of happiness in Hades. 

This is the sense in which these words were used by the 
Jews and Greeks when the Savior came, and he adopted 
them so as to express to the people in their own language 
the ideas of future punishment and of future happiness — 
of hell and heaven. In Matt. 3 : 12 we have the expression 
that he (Christ) "will burn up the chaff [meaning the 
wicked] with unquenchable fire." Unquenchable fire means 
fire that cannot be quenched. This passage certainly refers 
to the final destruction of the wicked, and that their pun- 
ishment will be unending. This passage, therefore, pre- 
sents eternal punishment for the wicked without the use of 
either one of the above words. In Mark 9 : 43, 44 we have 
this language: "And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it 
is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two 
hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be 
quenched; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." The word hell in this passage is from Gehenna, 
representing the place of torment into which the wicked 
will be cast, and in which the worm that dieth not rep- 



308 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

resents the soul of the wicked, which will continue to be 
punished in the fire that never shall be quenched; and no 
ingenuity of interpretation can ever get this thought out 
of the passage; while Gehenna represents the place where 
these fires of torment will forever burn. And in every one 
of the twelve places where this word is used it has refer- 
ence, directly or indirectly, to this place of eternal torment. 
Men may say as much as they please that there is no hell 
and no eternal punishment and all that, but the word of God 
will stand firm when time is no more and when all men 
shall have gone to their reward. 

HELL, IS IT A LITERAL PLACE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give me through 
your valuable paper your opinion as to whether hell is any fixed re- 
ality? Do you think there is really a place that burns with fire and 
brimstone for the punishment of the unredeemed? Or do you think 
our conscience makes for us our heaven or hell? 

We do not think our consciences make the heaven or hell. 
The conscience of the wicked becomes seared, blunted, and 
insensible. Our worst men are those who have lost all sen- 
sibility or conscience. They are hardened. Conscience 
loses its disposition and power to punish. We have no evi- 
dence that conscience seared and blunted in this world will 
be tendered and quickened in the next. Indeed, we are 
sure the Bible teaches that those that are given over to sin 
and past feeling will be no better there than here. There 
will be positive punishment in the next world. That it 
will be literal fire and brimstone, we think doubtful, because 
the soul may not be sensitive to material fire. It will be 
the soul with its spiritualized body that will suffer. But 
that suffering is best conveyed to our minds by the Spirit of 
God under the figure of the worm never dying in a destroy- 
ing flame of "fire and brimstone." We cannot conceive of 
beings without places. Hell is filled with beings and must 
have place — location. D. L. 

HELL, AND HOW ALL THINGS WORKED FOR GOOD. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Rom. 8: 28: "And we know 
that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them 
who are the called according to his purpose." (2) Also give your 
exegesis on the word hell. Do we not have considerable hell in some 
form in this world — for instance, war and other calamities, causing 
great sorrow? 

(1) This passage is a very consoling one to the faithful 
children of God. It declares a wonderful truth, and a 
truth that will bring consolation to every child of God 
that understands it and will trust in it. It evidently means 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 309 

that all things will work for the spiritual good of all who 
faithfully love and serve him and have been called accord- 
ing to his purpose. God's purpose in calling men is to call 
them by the gospel. All, therefore, that embrace the gospel 
as written in the New Testament are called according to 
God's purpose. The three thousand mentioned in Acts 2 
were called according to God's purpose ; for they heard, be- 
lieved, and obeyed the gospel as preached by the Holy Spirit 
through the apostles. The word purpose does not mean 
some sort of an eternal decree, by which some are decreed 
to be saved and others lost, and that none but the foreor- 
dained ones can believe and be saved. It means that all 
that will hear and obey the gospel are called and saved ac- 
cording to God's purpose. But one serious trouble about 
the matter is that we do not always know what is for our 
spiritual welfare, and often things that are really for our 
own good, but at the time are unpleasant to us, we mistake 
for calamities instead of blessings. God chastens his peo- 
ple, and sometimes these chastisements are very unpleasant 
and disappointing to us; but if we would accept them as 
chastisements and be perfectly submissive to them, they 
would all work good for us. Some love the world so well 
that they fret and murmur under them, and thus dissipate 
the good that was intended for them. Christians need not 
think that all their worldly desires and ambitions would be 
for their good if accomplished. Many of them would be to 
their injury, spiritually, if they should succeed in them. 
Hence, whether everything that happens is for our spirit- 
ual good or not depends on how we take them and the im- 
pression we allow them to make. We must learn that in 
everything God's way is best. Christians ought, therefore, 
to try to improve and grow better over all apparent disap- 
pointments, and they will see that even apparent calamities 
will prove to be great blessings to them. 

(2) The word hell means the place of torment, or pun- 
ishment for the wicked after death, and is never applied to 
the troubles and disappointments in this life, so far as I 
now remember. Theologians that think more of their own 
theories than they do of the word of the Lord have been 
busy for years in knocking out all ideas of eternal punish- 
ment ; but those men may yet find, to their sorrow, that the 
passages that speak of eternal punishment are good for all 
they call for. 



310 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

HERESY. 

A heresy is a schism, a division, or a party. Whatever 
produces schisms or parties in the church of God is a her- 
esy, and is condemned in the Bible as sinful. The truth 
as recorded in the Bible constitutes the faith. The prac- 
tice of the truth is the work of the children of God. That 
truth demands service both in the individual and church 
capacity. There ought to be agreement as to what the 
truth is ; and if there be this, there must be agreement as 
to what the practice should be. The teachings of the Bible 
are sufficiently clear and plain to leave no doubt upon the 
man that comes to God with the single purpose to know 
and do the will of God as to what it is. 

The reason men do not understand it alike, save within 
narrow limits, arising from constitutional differences, is, 
they look at it from different standpoints. They look at it 
through their prejudices and surroundings, and with a de- 
sire to accomplish certain ends and aims besides an earnest 
desire to know and do the will of God. Their prejudices 
and predilections arise from early associations, early train- 
ing, preconceived ideas, aims, and purposes. Man is not 
always responsible for the existence of his prejudices, as he 
cannot control his early surroundings and the early ideas 
and conceptions he forms. But an earnest and sincere de- 
sire to know and do the will of God helps greatly to over- 
come these prejudices that blind our judgment and hinder 
our knowledge of the true will of God, and, if persisted in, 
will lead to a knowledge of his will, needful to salvation. 
For this honest desire to do the will of God and a corre- 
sponding effort to know it we are all responsible. God 
does not condemn men in the beginning for imperfect faith 
or imperfect knowledge. Jesus accepted the service of his 
apostles through years of very imperfect faith, many mis- 
conceptions, greatly warped and blinded by prejudices; yet 
they were led on through this imperfect faith and obedience 
to know the full will of God. Paul was full of bitter and 
blinding prejudices, yet had a sincere desire to know and 
do the will of God. God delivered him from the prejudices 
and blindness and made him "not a whit behind the chiefest 
apostles." He delivered him through miraculous interven- 
tion. He delivers now not through miracles ; still, he is as 
strong to deliver through ordinary means as through mir- 
acles, and will bring those who have a sincere desire to 
know and do his will to an appreciation of his living and 
life-giving truths. 

That deliverance is sometimes gradual and slow. The 
deliverance is promoted by the strength of the purpose to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 311 

do the will of God, and is hindered by the desire to main- 
tain other purposes and to accomplish other ends. Every 
man has these predilections and preconceptions that warp 
his judgment and blind his vision to a greater or less ex- 
tent. Some have them stronger than others. Some de- 
sire to know and do the will of God with more earnestness 
and singleness of purpose than others; hence some learn 
the truth much more slowly than others, even where nat- 
ural ability is equal. No human being in the beginning of 
his religious life can, with a true and perfect heart, desire 
to know and do the will of God. To have such a heart, un- 
bonded by prejudice, unwarped by other desires, would be 
more than human. If God did not accept service from im- 
perfect and prejudiced hearts, he would never accept serv- 
ice from human hearts. 

God accepts service from these imperfect hearts because 
by the service the prejudices are gradually worn away. 
Man, as he obeys, comes better and better to see the truth, 
more and more freed from his blindness, and, as he sees 
and obeys the truth, is more and more conformed to the 
divine likeness. The growth in grace begins with planting 
in the heart faith in God. The heart comes to believe 
stronger, to come more and more into the condition to re- 
ceive more heartily the word of God, rooting out all other 
ideas, thoughts, and predilections, and so bring the mind, 
the feelings, the life, under the influence of God's will. 

God did not wait for Abraham's heart to be free from 
all prejudices or for his mind to be free from misconcep- 
tions as to the character and will of God or his faith or 
trust in him to be perfect. Human beings are never in this 
state until God has trained them through a lifetime and 
made their faith perfect through service. God said to 
Abraham : "Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kin- 
dred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I will 
show thee." Abraham wanted to obey God, but not with 
a perfect heart and single purpose. He had so little train- 
ing in obedience he did not know how to obey. He so 
loved his father and his nephew he did not perceive that the 
command of God, though plain and clear, said he should 
leave his father and Lot. So he took these with him. God 
detained him in Haran till his father died. "When his fa- 
ther was dead, he [God] removed him into this land, where- 
in ye now dwell." (Acts 7: 4.) Lot went with him. 
Only when he was separated from Lot did God give the 
blessing. "The Lord said unto Abram, after that Lot was 
separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look 
from the place where thou art." Abraham did not see that 



312 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

he must leave Lot to obtain the blessing. Still, he fol- 
lowed on with the purpose of obeying God, and did, as he 
came to see more fully, the will of God. But Abraham's 
faith was only made perfect when God had led him on and 
so trained him that he could offer his own beloved son as a 
sacrifice to him. He who imagines that his heart is per- 
fect, his knowledge of the will of God is complete, is him- 
self blind and presumptuous. 

Abraham's failure to understand the full will of God did 
not prevent God's accepting what he did in obedience to 
his commands; but it postponed the blessing to Abraham, 
and he failed to enjoy the promises as a more intelligent 
faith and greater trust would have enabled him to do. 

The same facts and conditions were present in Jacob, 
Moses, David, and were manifested in the apostles during 
the earthly ministry of Jesus. The same condition of early 
misconceptions and prejudices and a gradual growth in 
knowledge is present in the life of every child of God. 
The man that never learns more of the will of God, whose 
heart is not purified, whose knowledge of the divine will is 
not enlarged, whose faith is not perfected in knowledge, 
purity, strength, and directness in service, does not grow 
in grace and is a poor, miserable abortion of a Christian. 

One of the greatest evils to Christians is partisanship. 
Men agree on one point, and form a party to maintain and 
defend that point. The leader or majority of the party 
adopt other ideas, and all in a party spirit adopt these, too. 
It is seen in politics every day. The Democratic party has 
been the party of aggression and of acquisition of terri- 
tory to our country. The Republican party has opposed 
this policy. President Harrison, from some cause, favored 
the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands; President Cleve- 
land, from some reason, opposed it. The partisans, con- 
trary to the precedents of their parties, follow their lead- 
ers. We see it in religion. Brother McGary opposed 
printed comments to help the teachers and children in 
studying the Scripture lessons. I think he did it because 
those he opposed on other points used them. McGary par- 
tisans on the re'baptism question follow his theories on this. 
There is no connection between the two positions. I can- 
not think a responsible man, with the example of the teach- 
ing done by the Holy Spirit, can, in a normal condition of 
mind, say it is right to teach and enforce Bible lessons by 
spoken words, but wrong to do it by written words. I can- 
not think a man with enough connected thought to be re- 
sponsible can take such an absurd position, save as he is 
dominated by party prejudices and led by party spirit. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 313 

Especially he cannot think the crude comments of the many 
who undertake to teach the Bible, with no study or prep- 
aration, are better than those written by men who give 
their whole time to the study of the Scriptures. I give this 
as an example of party spirit. I can account for the 
groundless falsehood so tenaciously clung to by the rebap- 
tizers that I had opposed printed lesson helps for children. 
No one else save these ever thought I had done so. The 
reason they thought so was, I agreed with them in opposing 
the addition of human societies to do church work. They 
took it for granted I belonged to their party, and what the 
party believed I believed. Blinded by their party feeling, 
they have all the years failed to see the continued approval 
of printed helps for children I have given. They did not 
intend anything wrong in it; and I mention it just to show 
how people with the best and kindest intent can, under 
their prejudices, misapprehend plain statements and facts. 
The truth is, I have always tried to keep free from parti- 
sanship in religion and other things, and am glad to recog- 
nize and encourage every truth that exists among any peo- 
ple, and, instead of repudiating it, I would make it a start- 
ing point to lead on to other and fuller truth. In doing 
this, there is no compromise of truth; but we follow the 
example of Jesus and of Paul, who seized and encouraged 
every truth, found among Jew or Gentile, as a ground and 
starting point whence to lead them to more and fuller light. 
Paul quoted and approved what of truth heathen poets and 
philosophers taught, and sought from this truth to lead 
them up to fuller truth of God. 

Men have been prone to take one truth and give to it un- 
due prominence and around it form a party. They espe- 
cially do this on points that are controverted. Early in 
the church's history men misapprehended Paul's teaching 
of salvation by faith in opposition to works, and taught 
salvation by faith — through faith without the obedience of 
faith— without obedience to what God commanded. A re- 
action set in against that; and, failing to discriminate be- 
tween doing things God commanded and those invented by 
man, another party ran to the extreme of saying man is 
justified by any good works man might devise, and faith 
and the commands of God were ignored. Luther revolted 
at this, and the Lutheran Reformation was based on the 
truth: "We are justified by faith." Luther used the word 
faith, at first at least, in its Bible sense, to embody all that 
the Bible requires. He used faith to mean the plan of re- 
demption set forth in the Bible as distinct from the works 
and innovations of men presented in Romanism. If we 



314 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

use the term faith as embodying obedience to all the com- 
mands of God as given in the Scriptures, we are saved by 
faith alone. But a party was formed on 'this truth. Soon 
it was run to the extreme of separating the act of believing 
from obedience to the will of God ; and parties taught that 
so men believed in Christ, although they refused obedience 
to him, they would be saved. Against this perversion of 
the truth of God, Alexander Campbell and his fellows pro- 
tested. Starting out with this principle, he was, after he 
had been pleading for it for a number of years, led to see 
that baptism, as the expression of faith, was a condition on 
which God promised remission of sins, and so taught. This 
truth was fiercely contested. It would have been almost a 
miracle if this contention with human nature as it is had 
not exalted in the minds of many the point of controversy 
and given it an undue prominence. It has done it. Men 
exalt the fact that baptism is for the remission of sins as 
the essential item of faith. God, to encourage man, tells 
him that, in obeying God, God will bring him to remission 
of sins among a number of blessings and favors. It is 
seized by a number of partisans to the controversy, and, 
because it has been opposed, is exalted above all the other 
ends and promises, made into a dogma around which a 
party is formed. A party based on the truth that baptism 
is for the remission of sins is just as bad as a party based 
on the truth that we are justified by faith. There is no 
need for compromising any truth ; there is no need to exalt 
one truth, one promise, one end, or aim, or blessing prom- 
ised, above another. To do this is to do violence to the or- 
der of God. 

There are at present two efforts to form a party around 
the truth that baptism is for the remission of sins. One 
proposes to form a party embodying this truth, to stand 
on an equality with other parties based on other truths 
taken out of their place (each party holds some truth taken 
out of its proper order and exalted above other truths), 
and seek to be a denomination or party among other de- 
nominations or parties. The other proposes to build a 
party on this truth, excluding all other denominations as 
unworthy of recognition. Both are wrong. Any exalta- 
tion of one command or promise of God above other com- 
mands or promises destroys God's order and substitutes hu- 
man wisdom for divine authority. To make the under- 
standing that baptism is for the remission of sins, and not 
the understanding of what the promise, "Ye shall receive 
the gift of the Holy Spirit," is, is to do it on man's reason, 
not by God's order. To do it is to exalt reason above the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 315 

word of God. Both of these tendencies to party should be 
earnestly and vigorously opposed, and we should earnestly 
hold to all the truths and promises of God alike. When- 
ever man has been led to love and obey God by any of the 
motives God has placed before him, God has accepted him. 
Whenever we reject service rendered from a motive or end 
given by God, we overturn God's order and fight against 
God. God never rejected the service of a human being 
that did what God commanded because he loved God and 
desired to do his will. Let us be careful that we do not 
misrepresent the character of God. That would be hurtful. 

D. L. 

"HIGHER CRITICISM," WHAT IS IT? 

What, in your judgment, will be the outcome of what is termed 
higher criticism? In my judgment, it is not very high, but very de- 
structive. As this seems to be agitating the minds of many Bible 
students, a few articles from you might check the current or turn it 
in the right direction. 

The term higher criticism embraces two classes of crit- 
ics — one modest, reverential, painstaking, and sincerely de- 
sirous of arriving at truth. All criticism of this character 
will be helpful and will do good. The more we know of the 
Bible, the better. There is a different class and character 
of critics that claim to be higher critics. They are irrev- 
erential and sensational, anxious for something new, reck- 
less and blatant in their conclusions and statements. These 
make a noise for the present, gratify and please those who 
love license and sin and reject the knowledge and authority 
of God. They make a noise for the present, but will soon 
be forgotten. The Bible has passed through many such 
experiences as this. When the revolution of the earth 
around the sun was discovered, all this class of people pre- 
dicted the science of astronomy would disprove the truth 
of the Bible and destroy man's faith in it. After gener- 
ations have passed, not a single Bible term concerning the 
movements of the planets has been set aside or replaced by 
others. Geology then was the lever that was to overturn 
the Bible statements. Then evolution came in, and the 
enemies of the Bible persist it has been accepted as true; 
but the world has ceased to think of it, though not two dec- 
ades old. So now higher criticism is the latest infidel fad. 
It will run its course as the others did. 

The Bible has nothing to fear from criticism, from inves- 
tigation concerning its origin, who wrote it or when it was 
written, corruptions that may have crept into it, transpo- 
sitions that may have occurred in it. All the honest and 
true investigation that can be made concerning its origin, 



316 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

purity, and teaching will be gladly welcomed by all true 
lovers of the Bible. The only harm that comes out of it 
will be, the excitable — those of weak faith, men that do not 
investigate, that assume things as true without fair and 
just criticism — will, by the noise they make, carry some 
whose faith is weak, who never investigate for themselves, 
into infidelity. It will not last. It has already passed its 
strength, and is on the wane in Germany, France, and En- 
gland even. It has only recently reached our country. It 
will soon be forgotten here. 

Faith in the divine origin of the Bible is in no more dan- 
ger of destruction than faith in the divine origin of the sun 
is. Man could just as easily have created the sun and hung 
it in the universe as he could have originated and composed 
the Bible. This is as much above his mental capacity as 
that is above his physical powers. 

Whatever of truth investigation and criticism may dis- 
cover will abide and be helpful to men in understanding 
and obeying the Bible. The ephemeral cry of infidelity, 
like the mists that for a moment obscure the light of the 
sun, will soon vanish and leave it all the brighter. Much 
that light, pretentious criticism proposes to do is far be- 
yond its reach. It is our duty to guard the thoughtless 
against its claims, and time will cure its ill effects. D. L. 

HIRELING AND WOLVES. 

Brother Lipscomb: I heard a Baptist preach from John 10: 12, 
and he says the wolf caught the hireling, and not the sheep. Give 
an explanation of the verse — whether the wolf caught the hireling or 
the sheep. 

We have no doubt the devil is the wolf here referred to ; 
and he, doubtless, will catch the hireling that leaves the 
sheep. But that is not what this passage teaches. "But 
he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the 
sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, 
and fleeth : and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the 
sheep. " A well-known rule is, a pronoun must agree with 
the noun for which it stands in gender, number, and per- 
son. Them is plural ; hireling is singular number ; there- 
fore it cannot stand for hireling. The only plural noun for 
which it can possibly stand is sheep. He catcheth and 
scattereth sheep. That is just what wolves do. Wolves 
are not in the habit of leaving the sheep and catching the 
shepherd. D. L. 

HOLY SPIRIT, INDWELLING. 

Brother Sewell: The articles of Brother R. B. T., together with 
your reply, have created some excitement among the brethren here. 
They are satisfied the Spirit dwells in Christians now, but are not 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 317 

satisfied about the how. They are asking questions like these: "Is 
the Spirit given in or through the word, and, therefore, dwells in the 
heart in the word? If so, has the one in whom the Spirit thus 
dwells both the word and the Spirit dwelling in him?" The world 
can receive the word, but cannot receive the Spirit. Are they not, 
then, in this case separated? To the children of God, who had al- 
ready received the word and been begotten by it, Paul said : "Because 
ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
hearts." Did Paul mean they should receive more word, which, un- 
like the word already received, had the Spirit in it, or did he mean 
they should receive the Spirit itself? For the sake of these brethren, 
please answer, provided you can do so without becoming wise above 
what is written. 

When Peter promised the gift of the Holy Spirit on the 
day of Pentecost to those that would repent and be bap- 
tized, he certainly meant more than that the word should 
be received, for they had by faith already received the 
truth of the gospel, and their repentance and baptism was 
is still further reception of the word into their hearts and 
their lives; and then the promise of the Holy Spirit was 
something beyond this, the reception of which depended 
upon their obedience to the gospel. Peter also said when 
speaking of the exaltation of Christ : "And we are his wit- 
nesses of these things; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom 
God hath given to them that obey him." (Acts 5: 32.) 
In obeying the gospel we receive the word into our hearts ; 
and when we have obeyed, then God promises the Spirit 
upon that obedience. But if we would have the Spirit of 
God to dwell in our hearts, we must continue to obey the 
word while life shall last; for when Paul had told the Co- 
rinthians that they were the temple of God and that the 
Spirit of God dwelt in them, he also added: "If any man 
defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the 
temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." Paul also 
said to the Ephesians: "And grieve not the holy Spirit of 
God, whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption." 
This is an indication that if we grieve the Spirit by disre- 
garding the word of God as Christians, he may cease to 
dwell with us. Therefore, in order to have assurance that 
the Spirit shall dwell with us, we must continue to do the 
will of God as expressed in his word — must treasure up the 
word in our hearts that we may not sin against him. But 
the promise is clear that if we continue to obey the word, 
the Spirit of God will continue to dwell in our hearts. 

ECS 
HOLY SPIRIT, GIFT OF. 

Please answer the following question in your paper: "Then Peter 
said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name 
of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift 
of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 2: 38.) What is "the gift of the Holy 



318 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Ghost" — anything more than pardon, remission, born again in the king- 
dom, saved, etc.; or did the three thousand receive the Holy Ghost, or 
Spirit; or was there any power distinct from the words they heard 
uttered by Peter that influenced them to act? 

The gift of the Holy Ghost as mentioned in this passage 
we understand to be the Holy Spirit himself, which every 
one that obeyed the commands given had the promise of re- 
ceiving. It was not pardon, nor any part of pardon, nor 
was it any power imparted to enable persons to obey the 
commands of God, but something promised as a conse- 
quence of obeying God's commands. Paul represents the 
Spirit of God as dwelling in Christians, and we doubt not 
this is what Peter meant in this passage. Those he ad- 
dressed were already believers, and they were taught that 
if they would repent and be baptized remission of sins 
would follow, and also that they should receive the gift of 
the Spirit. The evidence to those who obey the gospel that 
they receive the Spirit to dwell with them is not some emo- 
tion or feeling, but the word of God, just the same as the 
evidence of pardon. Every one who believes the gospel 
and is baptized has the promise of remission of sins and 
of the reception of the Holy Spirit of God to dwell with him 
while he will be faithful to the Lord. We believe that the 
same promise extends now to all that obey the gospel of 
Christ that was given to those on the day of Pentecost by 
Peter. We believe the Spirit dwells with every faithful 
child of God now as well as in the days of the apostles. 

E. G. S. 

Brother Lipscomb: What is "the gift of the Holy Ghost?" (Acts 
2 : 38.) Do men receive the same gift now? Please explain Rom. 8 : 11. 

The gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 38) was the Holy 
Spirit himself. You can see this by reference to Acts 10 : 
44-48. The Spirit was then and there received in his mi- 
raculous manifestation. We do not now receive the Spirit 
as a miracle-working power. Life was given miraculously, 
but it has since been transmitted through fixed laws. So 
the Spirit was given miraculously in the beginning of the 
church, but has since been transmitted through the laws of 
the Spirit of life. Rom. 8: 11 says that if the Spirit that 
dwelt in Jesus and raised him from the dead dwell in us, 
he will raise us from the dead. It means that he will raise 
us up to salvation with Jesus. Without we have this Spirit 
that was in Christ, we are none of his. We will be raised 
to dishonor to pass away into the second death. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 319 

HOLY SPIRIT, SIN AGAINST. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you please inform me what is sinning 
against the Holy Ghost? 

To sin against the Holy Spirit is to refuse to do what the 
Holy Spirit commands, or to go beyond his commands, 
just as to sin against Jesus or against God was to sin 
against their commands. The Holy Spirit came last and 
gave the final sanction to the laws of God. To set them 
aside then was to leave nothing more to move the man. 
The sin against the Holy Spirit, I believe, is to persistently 
and finally reject his teaching and refuse his testimony. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Matt. 12: 31, 
which reads: "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and 
blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men : but the blasphemy against the 
Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men." 

To blaspheme the Holy Ghost is to speak reproachfully 
against the Spirit and its teachings, or authority. To sin 
against the Holy Spirit is to refuse and reject or disregard 
his teaching. Any man that does either one through this 
life will be eternally condemned in the world to come. 
There is no forgiveness for such. 

By request, I write for information on a portion of scripture in 
Matt. 12: 32, as to the sin against the Holy Ghost — whether or not 
it is a definite sin or any sin committed knowingly contrary to the 
teachings of the Holy Spirit. 

The Holy Spirit gives the final law of pardon, or salva- 
tion. If we only obey the words or laws given by the Spirit, 
we will be saved here and hereafter ; but if we refuse — sin 
against the words or the laws of the Spirit — we will be 
condemned here and hereafter. To refuse to submit to the 
laws of the Spirit, to sin against his laws, will bring eternal 
condemnation. Such sins will neither be forgiven in this 
world nor in the world to come. There are, therefore, 
many ways of sinning against the Holy Spirit in this sense. 
And if something like this is not what is meant by the pas- 
sage, we do not know what it means. If we will submit to 
all the laws and teachings of the Spirit, both in becoming 
Christians and in living Christians, we need never be un- 
easy about committing the sin against the Holy Spirit ; but 
if we put the doctrines and commandments of men instead 
of the commands of God or in any way reject or refuse the 
commands of God as given by the Spirit in the word of 
truth, we may then well be afraid. Our hope of salvation 
here or in the world to come is to be guided in all things 
by the words of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of truth. 

E. G. S. 



320 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

HONEST, WILL GOD SAVE THE, WHETHER THEY DO 
JUST WHAT HE COMMANDS OR NOT? 

All that men can know about this matter is just what the 
Lord tells us, and he has never told us in one single in- 
stance that he will save any except those who do his will. 
If it shall turn out to be right that some who do not do his 
will shall be saved, it will be certain to be done; but this 
matter is wholly with the Lord, and he has not told us any- 
thing about it. It is not very easy to discover how men 
who have the word of God and know how to read it and 
have strictly honest hearts can fail to understand what God 
would have them do. The same book that tells us of God 
and of heaven and the plan of* salvation provided through 
our Lord Jesus Christ tells with equal plainness what we 
are required to do in order to be saved ; and where the Bi- 
ble is not, nothing is known of salvation, anyway. The 
New Testament tells us what Jesus did to prepare the plan 
of salvation in language as plain as anything was ever told 
to humanity. None who read Matthew, Mark, Luke, or 
John can fail to understand that Jesus died, shed his blood 
for many for the remission of sins, was buried, and rose 
again from the dead. Nothing was ever more plainly or 
more intelligibly told than the story of the cross is told by 
these men. In the commission as given by these men and 
in Acts of Apostles the conditions upon which men were to 
be saved are expressed with equal plainness ; and in the im- 
mediate connection with the conditions upon which we are 
to be saved we are plainly told that if we do not do them 
we shall be condemned. "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Who that can understand the gospel, the plan of salvation, 
can fail to understand these declarations of the Son of God ? 

Again, all men are commanded to repent, and Jesus says : 
"Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish." Repent- 
ance and remission of sins were to be preached among all 
nations, beginning at Jerusalem. All these things are just 
as plain as language can make them; and in these things 
what room is there for a sincere, honest heart to make a 
mistake — to fail to understand them? So when brethren 
apologize for the honestly mistaken in the matter of be- 
coming a Christian, it must be upon the principle that 
they, with honest hearts and with the word of God before 
them and with all the advantages at their command to un- 
derstand the truth and with the very best efforts they can 
make, still fail to understand just what God would have 
them do. Some of our good brethren presume that this 
will be the case with some ; and they seem, if possible, more 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 321 

anxious to' make out some way by which God will save this 
class than they are to make known the plain word of the 
Lord, by which he promises with the most perfect cer- 
tainty to save all who do what he requires. We do not see 
any reason why any who have mind enough to be respon- 
sible, and who entirely free themselves from prejudice, 
should fail to understand, nor is there any intimation in 
the word of God that there will be any such; and hence 
there is no intimation that any will be saved, except in obe- 
dience to the truth, to the plain requirements made in the 
gospel of Christ. For any man to claim that there are any 
such cases is for him to simply express his own opinion 
where there is no expression of the word of God ; and then 
for any one to say not only that there are such, but that the 
Lord will save them, anyhow, though they have not fully 
obeyed him, is purely a matter of presumption. The word 
of God nowhere says any such thing, and for a man to say 
so is virtually to apologize for sin — for rebellion against 
God. We think it both dangerous and sinful for any 
preacher to intimate that God will forgive the sins of any 
except in accordance with the teaching of the apostles as 
recorded in the New Testament. 

When Jesus was sending out his apostles, he said to 
them : "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
them ; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." 
(John 20: 23.) This is a very definite and full expression. 
"Whose soever sins ye remit." This most certainly means 
that the apostles were to forgive sins, not by their own 
power, but through the gospel by preaching it to them and 
inducing them to obey it. They could save no soul as men. 
The power to save is in the gospel, and only those who obey 
the gospel have the promise of being saved by it. This 
passage, therefore, plainly shows that none will be saved 
except through the gospel as preached by the apostles. Je- 
sus also said: "Whose soever sins ye retain, they are re- 
tained." The apostles, as men, could not retain sins; there- 
fore the expression must mean that only those could be 
saved who would receive and obey the gospel as preached 
by the apostles. These two classes again embrace all. 
Some were to be forgiven and some not. Those to be for- 
given were to be forgiven by the apostles. This plainly in- 
dicates that God has no other plan of forgiving men than 
through the gospel as proclaimed by the apostles. How, 
then, are those going to be saved that do not do what the 
gospel requires? There is no other plan of saving men 
revealed except the gospel, and none can be saved by it ex- 
cept those who obey. Paul says that when Christ comes to 



322 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

judge the world he will take "vengeance on them that know 
not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus 
Christ." How, then, and by what plan are any going to be 
saved except those who do what God says? Those who 
say they will say so upon their own responsibility and are 
adding to the word of God when they do so. Preachers 
should be satisfied to say just what God says and promise 
just what he promises and stop at -that. When they say 
more, they say it upon their own responsibility and at their 
own peril. They have no right to preach any such thing. 
All such preaching as this, so far as it has any influence at 
all upon those in error, only has a tendency to lull them to 
sleep in their errors instead of leading them out. Every 
time a preacher argues that God will save those in error 
for their honesty he weakens his power to get them out of 
error. He blots out more and more the line of distinction 
between truth and error, justifies error more and more, and 
lessens more and more the necessity for all to obey the plain 
truth in order to be saved. Yet our own brethren do these 
things sometimes. We heard one do some of this very re- 
cently. While it would be very congenial to our feelings 
to save all who want to be saved, it is not for us to prom- 
ise salvation to any except to such as God promises to save. 

So far as being saved through honesty is concerned, 
Paul had just as high claims to that as any man can have 
now when he was persecuting the church. He says he 
verily thought he ought to do it. Yet he tells us after- 
wards that he was chief of sinners, and that he obtained 
mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief. So far 
from his honesty saving him when he did contrary to the 
will of God, it only opened the way for him to obtain par- 
don when he obeyed the truth, which could not have been 
done but for his honesty. But had he continued through 
life, as thousands of the Jews did, to persecute the church, 
rejecting the gospel, then how? Suppose the Lord had not 
determined to make an apostle out of him and had just al- 
lowed him to go on in his persecutions as he did others, 
would he then have been saved? Most certainly not, when 
he was chief of sinners, as he himself said. Who, then, is 
safe in error? Men should leave off these opinions and 
preach the word of God, and then all would be well. It is, 
therefore, certain that none have the promise of salvation 
except those whose sins are remitted by the apostles — 
that is, by the gospel which they preached and as they 
preached it. 

The same may be said of practical Christianity. No one 
has the promise of heaven except those who live as the word 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 323 

of God directs. The same apostles who taught so plainly 
the first principles of the oracles of God have taught with 
equal plainness the individual work of Christians. Those 
who do these things have the promise of eternal life. When 
Christians, through the weakness of the flesh, do wrong, 
God has, through the apostles, given a law of pardon 
through which the humble, penitent, erring child of God 
may obtain pardon. This is just as certain in its results 
as the law of the gospel is in making Christians. But 
there is no promise that the Christian will be pardoned 
who does not comply with this law. As the promise of 
heaven is only to the obedient, to those who do his com- 
mandments, where is evidence that any will be saved other- 
wise? There is none. If, however, it should turn out that 
it will be right for any others to be saved, the Lord will do 
it ; but that is his business, and not ours. It is the business 
of preachers to preach the word of God in all its fullness 
and urge upon all men the importance of obeying it; but 
whenever a preacher leaves off this work and tries to show 
that God will save some without implicit obedience, he 
leaves his proper work and launches out on forbidden 
ground. This is precisely the principle that brought such 
ruin upon the ancient Jews. Their leaders, as God said, 
caused them to err. This they did by teaching them that 
something else would do for the service of God besides do- 
ing just what he commanded ; and little by little they led 
them away till God brought the heathen upon them and car- 
ried them out of their own land. We, as a people, have 
been fighting these very things among the denominations 
for the last half century, and now some are turning back 
and tearing down the very work we have so long been trying 
to build up. Brethren, please don't do this. Let us go on 
building up the truth and leave others to tear down if noth- 
ing else will do thern. E. G. S. 

HOUSE, THE LORD'S. 

Under Judaism was erected the temple; that was recog- 
nized as "the Lord's house," "the house of the Lord," "the 
house of God." In it was recorded the Lord's name; in it 
was the mercy seat; in it must the offering of prayer or 
praise be presented. But Judaism was fleshly, temporal, 
and typical of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the Lord, 
that has succeeded it. The temple itself, with its corner 
and foundation stones and the comely stones of its walls, 
was typical of the temple not made with hands, founded 
upon the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief 
corner stone, of which every Christian is a living stone, all 



324 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

"builded together for a habitation of God through the 
Spirit." The type is always less sacred than the thing 
typified. The antitype of the temple surely is not brick 
and mortar, wood and stone, builded without direction from 
God. A meetinghouse surely is not the thing typified by 
the temple of God under Judaism. It certainly typified the 
church of God, composed of the living stones, built into 
the spiritual temple of God. "Destroy this temple, and in 
three days I will raise it up." "Howbeit the most High 
dwelleth not in temples made with hands." "Know ye not 
that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God 
dwelleth in you ? If any man defile the temple of God, him 
shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which 
temple ye are." (1 Cor. 3 : 16, 17.) "What? know ye not 
that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in 
you?" (1 Cor. 6: 19.) "What agreement hath the tem- 
ple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living 
God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in 
them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people." 
(2 Cor. 6: 16.) 

In Revelation also there is frequent reference to the 
church of God as the temple of the Holy One. The term 
house of God is also applied to the spiritual body of Christ, 
not to the material local building in which Christians meet. 
Paul says in 1 Tim. 3 : 15 : "That thou mayest know how 
thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which 
is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the 
truth." Heb. 10 : 21, speaking of the superiority of Christ 
and the priests of Judaism, says: "Having a high priest 
over the house of God." 1 Pet. 4 : 17 says : "For the time 
is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and 
if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that 
obey not the gospel of God ?" Paul to the Ephesians says : 
"Ye are . . . fellow citizens with the saints, and of 
the household of God ; and are built upon the foundation of 
the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the 
chief corner stone; in whom all the building fitly framed 
together groweth unto a holy temple in the Lord : in whom 
ye also are builded together for a habitation of God through 
the Spirit." (Eph. 2 : 19-22.) The church of living stones 
is the temple, the house of God, typified by the old temple. 
The corner stone of that temple typified Christ ; the stones 
that composed the temple, the living members of the church 
of God. 

It did not typify meetinghouses. It is proper to apply the 
lessons taught concerning and through the type to the anti- 
type. As God in earthly Judaism dwelt in the earthly 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 325 

house and there met to bless, so in spiritual Israel he, 
through the Spirit, dwells in the spiritual house — the 
house not made with hands, the house whose chief corner 
stone is Christ, the house "builded together for a habita- 
tion [dwelling place] of God through the Spirit." The 
lessons of care and sanctity and reverence taught concern- 
ing the old temple of God are examples to teach how rever- 
ential and careful we must be in reference to the spiritual 
temple and how we should make it after the pattern given. 
It must not be neglected ; it must not be defiled ; it must not 
be made secondary to anything in the world ; it must not be 
left scattered one not upon another. To apply these lessons 
taught concerning the temple of God, the house of God un- 
der earthly Israel, to meetinghouses, is to misapply and per- 
vert the truth of God, is to exalt and idolize the work of 
man's hands — the brick and mortar, wood and stone — into 
the place of the living church of God. 

The meetinghouse is no part of the Christian religion. 
It is not required in the Scriptures. It is among the things 
indifferent. It is no sin to build one; it is no sin to do 
without one ; it is no service to God to build one ; he has not 
required it. It is a convenience that comes in as a substi- 
tute for or hindrance to no appointment of God, so is harm- 
less. God has made no provision where or in what kind of 
building to meet, or whether any ; but he has left the exam- 
ple of using the groves, private houses, the temple, the syn- 
agogue — just such place as is convenient. If a church finds 
it more comfortable and convenient to build a house for 
meeting than to meet in private houses or than to meet out 
of doors, it is at liberty so to do ; but it is a convenience for 
the church and people, not the house of God, not a dwelling 
place of God. It is no more the house of God than the 
house in which any Christian lives. The Christian builds 
him a private house because it is comfortable and con- 
venient to have it. The church builds a meetinghouse for 
the same reason. God dwells in neither; he dwells in the 
temple of believing hearts. There is the same and as much 
personal pride in building meetinghouses as in building 
private residences. As much sin in gratifying our pride in 
the one as in the other. God is honored, not by the house 
made with hands, but by having every stone in the spirit- 
ual house a comely one and in its proper position. 

In matters of house building, the will and judgment of 
the wiser, more devoted and experienced members of the 
body of Christ should prevail, care being had that no prin- 
ciple of Christian truth and Christian brotherhood be vio- 
lated in doing this, and no interest of the church be sacri- 



326 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ficed or injured in doing it. But, according to the teaching 
of the prophets, it is a sin to spend money in building fine 
houses for our own convenience and comfort, either in pri- 
vate living or public meeting, while the true house of God, 
the pillar and support of the truth, the temple of living 
stones, "builded together for a habitation of God," is scat- 
tered, languishes, needs teaching, while its members are 
without worship, without instruction, without shepherds to 
look after and guard and keep them safe within the Mas- 
ter's fold. Let us rightly apply Scripture and be guided 
by the Holy Spirit in our labor. "Is it a time for us to 
dwell in ceiled houses [at home or in the assembly], and 
this true house of God lie waste?" D. L. 

HUSBANDS AND WIVES SEPARATING. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Can husband and wife live Christians and 
live separate in violation of God's word? (2) Can husband and wife 
be divorced according to the Bible by walking off from each other; or, 
under the New Testament, is there any divorce law? 

These questions in one form or another are continually 
. coming up. We have answered some questions very re- 
cently along these lines; but as these have some different 
features in them and the subject is so very important, we 
will say something on it again. 

(1) As to the matter of husband and wife separating 
and living apart from each other, there is always something 
very radically wrong with one or the other or both when 
they do that. When they do this without the existence of 
the one scriptural cause — fornication — neither party has 
any right to marry again. In case there should be other 
reasons why it would be better for them to live separately, 
let them remain unmarried or become reconciled to each 
other again. If one party or the other is doing so badly as 
to make separation better than living together, they had 
better call upon the elders of the church and see if their 
troubles cannot be adjusted so they can live together in 
harmony. It is certain that when both parties do right 
they can live together in peace. It is also a matter of al- 
most positive certainty that temptations to wrongdoing 
will greatly increase if they undertake to live apart. If in 
such cases they do not call upon the elders or some proper 
persons to help them to adjust their differences, the elders 
ought to call upon them and see if they cannot lead them to 
a reconciliation of their differences, that they may live to- 
gether in harmony and thus put down reproach. 

(2) As to the matter of divorce under Christianity, that 
is more a question of human law than divine. Human law 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 327 

does not allow a man to marry again after separating from 
his wife without getting a divorce from the court. So 
that has to be done to satisfy human law. But getting a 
divorce from the courts will not satisfy the law of Christ 
unless the wife was guilty of fornication. All the courts of 
earth could not give a divorce that would justify a man in 
separating from one wife and marrying another if the one 
cause does not exist. Churches should be very careful in 
tolerating either a man or woman that separates from the 
other and marries again, unless there is reliable testimony 
that the one scriptural cause existed ; for, as certainly as the 
word of God is true, when a man marries a woman, and he 
and she live together for a time as husband and wife and 
then separate, and he marries again, when the one scrip- 
tural cause does not exist, he enters into a state of adul- 
tery the day he marries again and continues in that state 
until he sincerely repents and turns from the sinful rela- 
tion. And the church that allows such a man to live on as 
a member in full fellowship and does not call him to account 
for his course certainly encourages the sin by condoning it 
and themselves become guilty in thus winking at evil. The 
fact that courts grant a divorce in such a case does not in 
the least change or modify the law of Christ regarding the 
matter. Churches, therefore, have no right to in any way 
encourage a man in disregarding the law of Christ. It is 
certain also that a man that marries thus not only violates 
the word of God, but also sins against himself in so doing 
and endangers the interest of his own soul. The evil is a 
growing one, and all Christians should be strictly on their 
guard against entering into such marriages. The whole 
religious world needs to wake up on this subject and strive 
in every scriptural way to put a stop to such marriages. 
It was only on account of the hard hearts of the Jews that 
any general divorce system was ever granted to them, and 
Jesus entirely revokes the whole divorce business, except 
for the one cause, and restores God's original order in this 
matter ; and he was speaking the words of his Father when 
he did it. 

IGNORANCE, DOES HONEST, SAVE? 

It has been a subject of some discussion as to whether ignorance 
is an excuse for not obeying the gospel. Please let us hear from you 
on the subject, and explain Luke 23: 34; 1 Tim. 1: 13. Also give 
us your idea as to what is meant in 1 Tim. 5: 10, speaking of the 
widow washing the saints' feet. 

It is very certain that no man can obey the gospel who is 
ignorant of it ; that is an impossibility. But will a person be 
saved in ignorance of the gospel ? That is a different ques- 



328 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tion. It is certain that a wrong course pursued in ignorance 
of its wrongfulness renders the individual less guilty than 
if he knew it was wrong while pursuing it. This is what 
the Savior meant when he prayed of his crucifiers: "For- 
give them ; for they know not what they do." He did not 
ask forgiveness in their sins; but when they shall be 
brought to realize their sins and repent, he asks forgiveness 
in their behalf, because they do it not knowing they are 
crucifying their Lord and Savior. The intimation is clear 
that if they had crucified him knowing or believing he was 
the Son of God, they could not have found forgiveness. 
This prayer was answered when on the day of Pentecost 
they were convinced he was the Son of God and asked for 
terms of mercy, which were given, and those who crucified 
him not knowing what they did received mercy. They did 
not receive it in their ignorance. They received it when 
they learned and obeyed the truth ; and thus mercy was pos- 
sible to them, because their former crimes were committed 
in ignorance. 

This is the precise lesson, too, taught in 1 Tim. 1 : 13. 
When Paul, speaking of his own sinful course, said, "I ob- 
tained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," he 
was in the same condition of the crucifiers of the Savior 
and just as great a sinner. It was, it is to-day, just as high 
a crime before God to persecute, oppose, destroy the spirit- 
ual body of Christ as it was to destroy the fleshly body on 
the cross. Paul says he was a sinner, a vile blasphemer, 
under condemnation, needing mercy; and he obtained it 
when he learned the truth and repented, because he did it 
ignorantly in unbelief, was honest, sincere, thinking he was 
doing God's service while sinning. Mercy was possible to 
Paul only because he sinned thus ignorantly. 

Paul's good conscience, his earnest aim to serve God in 
ignorance, did not save him. He was brought to see the 
wrong; and when he repented, he obtained mercy. Had 
he committed these sins knowing it was the true church of 
God, no mercy would have been possible to him. That 
would have been sinning against God and his own con- 
science. 

If Paul's honest devotion to what he conscientiously be- 
lieved to be true would not save him in his ignorance, how 
can any man's save him? None are more conscientious 
than was Paul, none more self-sacrificing, none truer, none 
more faithful to what he believes to be the truth of God. 
If he was the chief of sinners, unsaved, needing mercy, lost 
without mercy, finding mercy only when he came to a knowl- 
edge of the truth and obeyed it, how can we hope that any 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 329 

will find mercy on other terms than these? Cornelius like- 
wise, living up to the best light he had, devout, prayerful, 
full of almsgiving, needed words whereby he might be 
saved. Through the light afforded by these words and his 
walk in that light he was saved. The eunuch was a devout 
student of the Scriptures, a worshiper of God. Was he 
better than Saul? Was he more honest, more intelligent, 
more zealous? He obeyed the truth as soon as he learned 
it, and went on his way rejoicing. 

Some good persons speculate that these would have been 
saved had they not learned the truth. Paul did not think 
he would. The others were not better than he. The Holy 
Spirit does not say such would be saved. It was no part of 
the Spirit's mission to tell how men could have been saved 
without obedience to God. No man under the guidance of 
the Spirit now undertakes to do this. All such specula- 
tions only afford excuses for not obeying God. They do 
no good, but much evil. 

Honest ignorance, then, does this for man as taught in 
the Bible. It renders it possible to find forgiveness when 
he learns the will of God and obeys it. If it does more for 
him, the Bible fails to tell what it is. A rebellious course, 
knowing it is rebellious, may prevent this. 

There is not a word of evidence in the Bible, so far as we 
have learned, that any soul in ignorance of God was ever 
saved or justified in that ignorance; he is justified through 
learning and obeying the will of God — that is, no man was 
ever justified or saved in ignorance of God's plan of justifi- 
cation. Every man ignorant, but anxious to know God's 
will and to do the truth, mentioned in the Bible, was 
brought to the knowledge of the truth that he might be 
saved by the truth. "God is no respecter of persons." 
We believe that all such will learn and be saved by the truth. 

In all these questions, it seems to me, we take narrow, 
one-sided views. We leave God and his providence out of 
the calculations. He is yet the chiefest factor in all the 
operations of earth. And the stern truth stares us in the 
face that God withdrew the knowledge of himself only from 
man when and because "when they knew God, they glorified 
him not as God," "became vain in their imaginations," and 
loved and "served the creature more than the Creator." 
"For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections." 
And as they refused to have "God in their knowledge, God 
gave them over to a reprobate mind." Read Paul's justifi- 
cation of God's giving up the Gentiles and withdrawing 
the knowledge of himself from them in Rom. 1. Then so 
soon as any of them became willing to honor and revere him 



330 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

as God, he again brought the knowledge of himself to them. 
God gave his Son to die to save men. I do not believe God 
has ever permitted a soul willing to receive that gospel to 
die without the opportunity of knowing and being saved by 
the gospel. No man can be saved by the gospel, save as he 
knows it. "God is no respecter of persons: but in every 
nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is 
accepted with him," and no others. God does not "cast 
pearls before swine;" but to every one willing to receive 
him, to him he sends the pearl of his salvation in the gospel. 
Some years ago I was at a sister's house, was sick, my 
feet needed washing. I asked for water. She brought it 
and insisted I should let her bathe them for me. She 
quietly did it as a kindness to me. I have always felt much 
nearer to that sister since. I think she did what was to be 
asked if the widow had done before admitting her into 
the number supported by the church. D. L. 

IMMERSED IN ONE DAY, COULD THREE THOUSAND 
HAVE BEEN? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you be so kind as to answer 
the following questions in regard to baptism? We find in the com- 
mission as recorded by Matthew and Mark baptism is required, and 
from Luke we learn that it is to begin at Jerusalem. We find that 
Peter preached at nine o'clock A.M. or after. Now, could the disci- 
ples have baptized three thousand people that day — immersed, I 
mean? But that is not the main question. Was there water enough 
inside the walls of Jerusalem to have immersed that many? It cer- 
tainly would have taken a larger pool than we have any account of; 
and as there is no stream of water within the walls of Jerusalem or 
near about, how, according to your judgment, was it done? 

The apostles could have baptized the three thousand that 
day without difficulty. Suppose them to have begun bap- 
tizing at noon. Then till six in the evening would give six 
hours in which to do the baptizing. Six hours give three 
hundred and sixty minutes. Then divide three thousand 
by twelve, the number of apostles, and it gives you two 
hundred and fifty, the number that each one would have to 
baptize. Then divide three hundred and sixty, the number 
of minutes they have in which to do the baptizing, by two 
hundred and fifty, the number each man has to baptize, 
and it gives nearly a minute and a half in which to baptize 
each man. A good baptizer can very easily baptize one 
each minute, and two a minute would be no difficult task 
where water is convenient ; but in this case you have nearly 
a minute and a half in which to baptize each man, and this 
would be a very easy task. Thus, by making this simple 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 331 

calculation, what many would say is impossible becomes an 
easy matter, and the difficulty all vanishes. 

In the second place, there was plenty of water in Jeru- 
salem in which baptizing could have been done. We have 
an account of two or three pools of considerable size there. 
The pool of Siloam was itself of sufficient size and extent in 
which to have baptized the three thousand with all ease. 
The Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge represents this 
pool as being one hundred and twenty paces long and forty 
paces wide and its greatest depth at least eight feet. One 
hundred and twenty paces would be something near three 
hundred and sixty feet, which would be the extent of water 
on one side — more than sufficient for the purpose. We 
were once told by a man that had resided for a long time in 
Jerusalem that those public pools were shallow at the edge, 
going down by steps ; that they would go down a foot or so 
at once, and then be for several feet that same depth, and 
then down about a foot again, and several feet again the 
same depth, and so on, making a most suitable place in 
which to baptize as well as bathe. Some of these pools 
were certainly for public use; and no difficulty, therefore, 
about obtaining access to them. By historical facts there 
was any amount of water in the city of Jerusalem to bap- 
tize three thousand, or ten thousand, or any number; and, 
besides this, the Book teaches plainly that the three thou- 
sand were baptized that day, and it is certain that the word 
baptize means immerse; and, therefore, if we believe the 
Bible, we must believe that the three thousand were im- 
mersed. E. G. S. 

IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL, QUESTIONS ON. 

Please explain 1 Cor. 15: 32. If we have immortal souls, why- 
would Paul not have been advantaged at death without a resurrec- 
tion of his body? Also explain verse 18 of the same chapter. If we 
are immortal and go to our final home at death, what is the use of 
resurrection of our bodies and a judgment at the end of time? 

A very large proportion of the difficulties that rise with 
reference to the Bible arise from the fact that people spec- 
ulate and express these speculative notions in language 
not found in the Bible, and this leads into conflict with 
plain statements of the word of God. Nowhere does the 
Bible say that the soul is immortal. No matter what ideas 
we may form with reference to the soul and its existence 
after death, we should be careful to formulate no expres- 
sions regarding these notions not found in the word of God. 

The passage under consideration, as well as many other 
passages on the subject, shows plainly enough that future 



332 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

happiness depends upon a resurrection from the dead, and 
there is no one expression in the word of God that conflicts 
with the idea. And whatever of trouble arises * from the 
expression that the soul is immortal grows out of specula- 
tion, and is only apparent, not real; for even if we grant 
this expression to be true, still, inspiration shows that fu- 
ture happiness depends upon a resurrection from the dead, 
when this mortal shall put on immortality. The soul needs 
that these vile bodies shall be changed and fashioned "like 
to his glorious body" in order to future happiness. This 
much is plainly revealed, and ought to be satisfactory to us. 
The second question arises from assuming what the Bi- 
ble does not say. The Bible does not say that we go to our 
final home at death. This is the way many preachers are 
accustomed to talk about it, but the Bible does not say so. 
The word of God represents us as sleeping in Jesus from 
death till the resurrection ; and it is such as these that Jesus 
will bring with him, will take them to the place he has pre- 
pared for them. When the last day shall come, the dead 
will be raised, the living saints will be changed, and all will 
be caught up to meet the Lord, and so shall we ever be with 
the Lord. Such are the plain teachings of the Bible on the 
subject; and if we will not formulate propositions of our 
own, there is not an expression in the Bible that will con- 
flict with the plain passage we have referred to in this. 

E. G. S. 

Will Mr. Sewell tell us where we get our idea of the immortality 
of the soul, since the Bible does not convey it? Do we get it from 
tradition merely, or have we been left to reason it out independently 
of the Bible, or to infer it from some more or less vague passage in the 
Bible, where, by implication, so important a fact may be taken to 
exist? Things are a little dark there. 

Mr. Brents here treats our article just as very many re- 
ligious people treat the word of the Lord. His question 
represents us as saying the Bible does not convey the idea 
of the immortality of the soul. We said nothing of the 
sort, and never thought of such a thing. He alludes to our 
reply to some queries on the subject in the Gospel Advo- 
cate of February 18 of this year. We here repeat the lan- 
guage to which he refers : "Nowhere does the Bible say the 
soul is immortal. No matter what ideas we may form with 
reference to the soul and its existence after death, we should 
be careful to formulate no expressions regarding these no- 
tions not found in the word of God." (Page 100, No. 7, 
present volume.) 

In this we are answering a difficulty that was presented 
regarding the immortality of the soul and the resurrection. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 333 

Our purpose was to show that the difficulty was only imag- 
inary, and arose from using an expression not found in the 
Bible. We said, and here repeat with emphasis : "Nowhere 
does the Bible say that the soul is immortal." Let Mr. 
Brents or any one else find it out who can. We were talk- 
ing on the phraseology, "immortal soul." Men use this ex- 
pression, but the Bible does not; and when we use words 
to express our ideas of what the Bible teaches in words and 
phrases not found in the Bible, we are liable — and, indeed, 
most likely — to find these phrases coming in conflict with 
something the Bible does say. This is the foundation of a 
very large proportion of the differences now existing on 
the teaching of the Bible. Men differ very little on what 
the Bible really says ; but they differ across the very heav- 
ens on what men say the Bible means as expressed in the 
words of uninspired men. Men do not differ on what the 
word of God says on faith and justification; but when men 
say we "are justified by faith only," we at once begin to 
differ. But this difference is on the phraseology of men, 
and not of God ; for God does not say it. God commands 
men to be baptized. All agree in this. Many men say bap- 
tism is a nonessential. Here difference begins again, but 
not over what God says, but over what men say. So it is 
regarding the soul. Some say the soul is mortal ; others 
say it is immortal. So here is a difference. But the dif- 
ference is on what men say, not what God says. He does 
not say the soul is mortal, nor does he say it is immortal. 
Now, suppose we drop off these expressions. Then the con- 
troversy on them ends. But what does the New Testament 
say regarding the soul? Jesus asks: "What is a man prof- 
ited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own 
soul?" (Matt. 16: 26.) Here it is plain that man has a 
soul and that he may lose his soul. But what is it to lose 
the soul? Jesus again says: "Fear not them which kill the 
body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear him 
which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell." (Matt. 
10: 28.) This shows that souls that are lost will be lost 
in hell. And in another passage he says : "And if thy hand 
offend thee, cut it off : it is better for thee to enter into life 
maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire 
that never shall be quenched : where their worm dieth not, 
and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9: 43, 44.) This 
passage shows what hell is and what it is to lose the soul. 
What a terrible loss it is! And all who believe the Bible 
must believe the truth of these passages. 

There are revealed to us two abodes for men after this 
life. One is called heaven, into which the saved will go; 



334 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the other is called hell, into which the lost will go. These 
are both represented as endless, or everlasting. The wicked 
"shall go away into everlasting [eternal] punishment: but 
the righteous into life eternal." (Matt. 25: 46.) Regard- 
ing the righteous, Jesus said : "I go to prepare a place for 
you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come 
again, and receive you unto myself ; that where I am, there 
ye may be also." These passages also we must believe, if 
we believe the Bible. 

So, then, men have souls that will either be saved or lost 
eternally. The lost will be cast into hell ; the righteous will 
be received into heaven. About the truth of these things 
there is no room for controversy among those who accept 
what God says as true; but when some say the soul is im- 
mortal and others say it is mortal, then controversy begins. 
Let us, therefore, express our conceptions of what man is 
and of what he is to be hereafter in language found in the 
word of God, and we will have no trouble. Those who 
obey the Lord in this life will live eternally in heaven, while 
those who disobey him will be cast into hell — "into outer 
darkness," where "there shall be weeping and gnashing of 
teeth." Let us all, therefore, seek to save our souls, that 
we may be happy forever. 

Another writer, referring to the same article, our answer 
to same query to which Mr. Brents alludes, says: "You 
leave the impression upon the mind of one brother at least 
that you are a 'soul sleeper,' or, rather, that you hold to the 
doctrine of soul sleeping between death and the resurrec- 
tion." We never said one word about anything of this 
sort, nor even thought of such, a thing. Paul said to the 
Thessalonian brethren: "If we believe that Jesus died and 
rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God 
bring with him." We alluded to this in the article above 
alluded to. Is this the evidence of that brother that I am a 
"soul sleeper?" Again, I stated that from the verse in 
Corinthians mentioned by the querist and other similar 
ones: "Future happiness depends upon a resurrection of 
the dead." Is this the expression from which he gets his 
impression? Paul said: "If after the manner of men I 
have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it 
me, if the dead rise not ? let us eat and drink ; for to-morrow 
we die." This I believe, and so must every man that be- 
lieves the Bible ; and it shows that Paul regarded all a fail- 
ure if there be no resurrection of the dead. The modern 
idea of "soul sleeping" is a mere speculation of modern 
times, formulated in language not found in the word of 
God as its advocates put it, and which never has and never 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 335 

can save a single soul. All such speculations are worthless, 
and worse than worthless; for they hinder those who em- 
brace them from obeying the word of God, which alone will 
bring salvation to man. E. G. S. 

IMPRACTICAL QUESTIONS. 

Will you please state in the Gospel Advocate what law the follow- 
ers of Christ were under from the crucifixion of Christ to the setting 
up of the kingdom on Pentecost? 

We cannot see of what possible benefit such questions 
can be. A Sunday school or church fed on such imprac- 
tical questions cannot grow very rapidly in grace and the 
knowledge of the truth. Suppose there was no law in ex- 
istence ; who will impeach God for his failure to supply the 
world with one and dethrone him ? I feel right sure of one 
thing: there were no conversions to Christ or God during 
that time; and if God saw there would be none, inasmuch 
as he does not cast pearls before swine, what if he saw fit 
to leave it without law? The immediate disciples of Christ 
were under law to remain at Jerusalem until they "be en- 
dued with power from on high." Only then were they au- 
thorized to bear witness concerning the Christ and guide 
men into the kingdom of God. God often leaves peoples 
and nations none of which are willing to receive him with- 
out law, without God, without hope in the world, stran- 
gers from the covenants of promise, aliens from the com- 
monwealth of Israel. If he left the world without law dur- 
ing this time, his wisdom saw it was just. 

INFANT REGENERATION. 

1. Do pedobaptists believe infants so depraved as to need regenera- 
tion? 

2. And if so, do they believe that all of them are regenerated by 
the Holy Spirit, or only those who die in infancy? 

3. And if only those who die in infancy, would it not be better that 
all should die at that time? 

4. Or do pedobaptists teach that only the infants of believing par- 
ents are regenerated by the Holy Spirit? 

5. If they believe all infants are regenerated, then is there such a 
thing as adult regeneration? 

6. If those who are regenerated in infancy fall away (as they often 
do if regenerated), can they be regenerated again? 

7. What is the evidence of baby regeneration? 

Pedobaptist views concerning the condition of infants 
and the object of infant baptism are as confused, diverse, 
and contradictory as can be imagined. Their teachings 
are an inextricable maze of confusion. Originally infant 
baptism was practiced because it was believed that all in- 
fants — all the seed of Adam — were totally depraved and 



336 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

exposed to wrath and everlasting destruction, without re- 
generation and the forgiveness of sin. As baptism was the 
act then and long universally recognized as the act in which 
forgiveness was promised, and as baptism was the only con- 
dition of those preceding pardon to which it was possible 
that an infant could be even seemingly subjected, infants 
were baptized with the prayer that God would spiritually 
regenerate them and grant them remission of sins and make 
them objects of God's mercy. It was then believed that 
all infants dying unbaptized were lost. Not only did the 
pedobaptists, but Baptists, believe some infants were elect ; 
others, nonelect. The Philadelphia "Confession of Faith" 
recognizes this. Mr. Jeter, in his "Review of Campbell- 
ism," maintained that without direct spiritual regeneration 
infants must be lost. He maintained that all dying in in- 
fancy were regenerated. Latterly the enormity of the idea 
of infant damnation has so presented itself that none now 
hold to it, and infant baptism exists without a reason. In 
trying to give a reason, no two agree. The evidence of in- 
fant regeneration we have never heard given. The truth 
is, men adopt a revolting theory of infant guilt and con- 
demnation, and then guess they are regenerated to save 
them from the revolting consequences of their own horrible 
theory. Infant regeneration rests upon the merest guess, 
without a word of foundation for it. There is just as much 
evidence that every adult dying is regenerated as that in- 
fants are. D. L. 

INIQUITY, STILL IN THE BOND OF. 

Brother Sewell: In the Gospel Advocate, No. 13, page 201, you 
say: "The man that hates his brother, or even his enemy, is still in 
the bond of iniquity." If he is still in the bond of iniquity, was not 
Simon, the sorcerer, yet in the gall of bitterness and the bond of in- 
iquity when Peter told him to repent and pray? 

John, when writing to Christians whom he regarded so 
tenderly as such as to say of them, "My little children/' 
said: "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his 
brother, is in darkness even until now." Here is an expres- 
sion of precisely the same import as the one we used. We 
were not writing on the subject of conversion and consid- 
ering whether a man had obtained pardon from his past 
sins or not, but whether the Christian has got away from all 
iniquity or not, whether he has left off all evil practices or 
not. It is universal with humanity to hate enemies when 
not controlled in this matter by the Christian religion ; and 
when any one has become a Christian and does not put 
down all hatred, but continues to hate, either a brother or an 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 337 

enemy, he is still in darkness, as John himself testifies. He 
even says: "Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: 
and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in 
him." Again he says : "If a man say, I love God, and hat- 
eth his brother, he is a liar." While one is a liar and even 
in the same line with a murderer, if he is not still in the 
bond of iniquity, we are dull of apprehension. Our brother 
ought to have observed the point we were on when we made 
the remark. The same is true regarding any sinful prac- 
tice a man has indulged before becoming a Christian and 
fails to lay it aside afterwards. And most sins may become 
ultimately unpardonable if persisted in through life. The 
Christian's business is, after he has become such, to put off 
all evil desires, impulses, and all wicked thoughts and ac- 
tions ; and while he fails to do this, he is still in them, is in 
darkness even until now. All the evil habits that men have 
formerly engaged in must be laid aside when they come into 
the church; otherwise they will still be in them and under 
condemnation; and yet this fact has nothing to do in de- 
termining whether they obtained pardon or not when they 
obeyed the gospel. We have no doubt but Simon obtained 
pardon when he believed and was baptized ; but he did not 
go out at once from all evil thoughts, but went on in- 
dulging them, and he was not redeemed as to his life from 
all iniquity. A man is not redeemed from hatred until he 
ceases to exercise it, no matter what the provocation may 
be; so with all evil habits. E. G. S. 

INNOVATIONS AND THE REFORMATION. 

Brother Sewell: In the beginning of the Reformation the follow- 
ers were the same in faith and practice. I am very sorry that inno- 
vation has crept in and severed the unity of the "one body." So we 
would be glad for a few thoughts from you on Mark 3 : 24, 25. 

"And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that king- 
dom cannot stand. And if a house be divided against itself, 
that house cannot stand." The Jews had just made the 
accusation that Christ was casting out devils by the prince 
of the devils, and Jesus gave the language quoted above to 
show to them the shallowness and ridiculousness of such an 
accusation, showing that if Satan was casting out demons, 
wicked spirits, he was against himself and was doomed to a 
speedy downfall. The same is true of any body of men, 
kingdom, or house. Nothing of the sort can stand long 
when divided, as Satan would be if he were casting out his 
own workers, his own ministers. 

But that passage is not an exact likeness of the division 
referred to. The party that is responsible for the division 



338 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

has never objected to any part of the original faith and 
practice of the disciples of the first half of the nineteenth 
century. They can all work and worship as those early 
churches did without a compunction of conscience. Their 
part in the matter is to introduce things they know and 
admit are untaught, and therefore unauthorized, in the 
New Testament, such as missionary societies through 
which to preach the gospel and instrumental music in the 
worship. They simply claim the right to introduce these 
on the plea of religious liberty and upon the claim that 
they are not forbidden in the word of God, and such like. 
All those who stand upon the original ground, or claim to 
live strictly by what the word of God says, and to regard 
things not required in the work and worship of the church 
as for that very reason forbidden, cannot accept anything 
added by human wisdom as allowable, either in faith or 
practice. The faithful part of the church stands to-day on 
the grounds they stood on when the writer came into the 
church in 1849. At that time and for a long time after- 
wards all the churches he knew or heard anything about 
held to the very same faith and practice, as all the loyal, 
faithful ones do to this day. But those that were not will- 
ing to continue to work and worship simply as the word 
of God directs have gone off into things they know the 
word of God does not require. So it may be truthfully 
said, as the apostle John says: "They went out from us, 
but they were not of us ; for if they had been of us, they 
would no doubt have continued with us ; but they went out, 
that they might be made manifest that they were not all 
of us." (1 John 2: 19.) This is in reality the true state 
of the case. They went away from the original ground, 
began to introduce things that no true and faithful child of 
God can accept and practice. This is what forced the divi- 
sion. They generally wait and work till they get a majority 
before they begin to introduce these innovations, so they 
can hold the house, and do not pay those whom they drive 
out a cent for their interest in it. They could stay and 
worship as the faithful ones have done all the while with- 
out a single hitch on their conscience. But when they get 
their majority and strength to force in their desired inno- 
vations, those who confidently believe these things to be 
sinful cannot afford to remain with such things, to give 
them the encouragement of their examples, and in that way 
become parties to what they believe to be sinful, and so 
they go somewhere else, where they can live and work and 
worship just as the word of God directs. Thus the innova- 
tors force those who are determined to live free from inno- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 339 

vations to go elsewhere to so live and worship. Then those 
that force in the innovations cry out in most sarcastic 
tones : "You have divided the church !" But there is not a 
word of truth in that charge. Those who force in human 
inventions and opinions, which those who intend to be 
faithful to Christ cannot afford to participate in, are the 
dividers, and are fully and criminally guilty in the divi- 
sion thus produced, and they will be held guilty at the judg- 
ment. In these conflicts the faithful ones may say and do 
things that are wrong and for which they will need to re- 
pent and pray God for pardon. But the guilt of producing 
these divisions as certainly rests on those who force in 
these divisive things as that the Bible is true, and they will 
have them to answer for. 

In this country they do not go out into entirely new fields, 
where there are no members at all, to build up new con- 
gregations on their lines, but prefer to go to churches built 
up by others and capture or divide them, and manage to 
hold the house. If they have gone out into new and desti- 
tute fields and built up a single congregation in this section 
of country, this writer knows not of it. So far as matters 
now stand in this country, those who force in the innova- 
tions are thoroughly responsible for the divisions that have 
occurred. This they have done by departing from original 
scriptural grounds and forcing in unscriptural things. 

INSTRUMENTS IN THE HOME AND IN SCHOOL. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it right for Christians to have organs in 
their houses? 

I know of no reason why it is wrong to have an organ in 
the home any more than any other instrument of music. It 
is lawful and right to have and to do many things in our 
houses and family relations that it would be wrong to bring 
into the church and its services. The organ is more used in 
connection with the worship than other musical instru- 
ments; but others are used. The piano, the violin, the 
brass instruments, are all used; and if the organ was out 
of the way, these others would take its place. There is no 
sin in the organ ; its wrong use constitutes the sin. I think 
the general cultivation of instrumental music has hindered 
all learning to sing, and this creates the demand for the in- 
strument in church services. Before instrumental music 
became common, the boys and girls all learned to sing ; now 
the girls learn to perform on the instrument, and cannot 
sing without it, and the boys do not learn to sing. So there 
is a demand for the instrument to carry the music in church. 
While these things are true, I cannot say instruments at 



340 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

home, properly used, are sinful. The thing needed is that 
all should cultivate their ability to sing as a duty they owe 
to God ; then there will be no demand for the instrument to 
carry the tune. Until the singing is done as a service we 
owe to God, it is not worship, but entertainment. 

Brother Lipscomb: I notice in the Nashville Bible School a piano 
recital on May 22. This seems to me a bad example. We are to 
train a child in the way it should go. If parents teach and consent 
to instrumental music in the home or school, it teaches them to love 
it and bring it into the church. Is it right for a member of the 
church of Christ to sing for Baptists in protracted meetings? 

Would it not be just as pertinent to say: If parents per- 
mit or encourage children to use beefsteak at home or in 
school, they will learn to love it and to bring it into the 
Lord's Supper? If persons refuse to bring things into the 
service of God because they do not like the thing, God is not 
pleased with such refraining. If men do things required 
by God because they love the things, and not because God 
requires it, God rejects that service. Many things are per- 
mitted to be used in our personal and secular life that could 
not be brought into the service of God. The thing to do is 
to teach the world that God can be worshiped only in his 
own appointments. Unless we learn this, all our worship 
will be vain. What we do to please ourselves does not 
please God. Only what we do to please him is accepted as 
worship. When we learn this truth, then what we like or 
dislike will not affect our worship of God. Let us learn 
ourselves and teach our children and the world that our 
mission is to do what pleases God, not what pleases our- 
selves. Those who as friends of truth run that truth to an 
absurd extreme are real enemies of the truth. 

INSTRUMENTS, TEACHING WITH. 

Brother Lipscomb: I find in 1 Chron. 25: 1 that persons were set 
apart to prophesy with instruments, and in 1 Cor. 14 Paul teaches 
that we should desire the gift of prophecy. Now, if they could an-, 
ciently teach with instruments, why not now? 

Things commanded to the Jews are not allowable to us 
unless they are repeated in the New Testament. We are 
not under the Old Testament, but under the New Testa- 
ment. If because things are commanded under the Old 
Testament they are to be done under the New Testament, 
then we must take infant church membership on a fleshly 
birth; we must offer burnt offerings and incense, practice 
polygamy, and many other services that we reject. The 
Old Testament was taken out of the way, because it was 
contrary to us, and the New Testament adopted. Jesus 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 341 

and the apostles dropped out instrumental music. No one 
claims they practiced it. They set us the example that we 
must prophesy without the instruments. If they saw fit 
to drop it out, who has the right to place it in, and why 
should any Christian want to put in what they dropped out? 
Instruments were not used among Christians for six hun- 
dred years, and then came in against the protests of the 
more pious and godly worshipers; but they were not even 
ordained by God in the Old Testament. The passage re- 
ferred to says David commanded their use, and in almost 
every allusion to them in the Old Testament they are re- 
ferred to as commanded or ordained by David, in contrast 
with what was commanded by God through Moses. Moses, 
not David, was God's lawgiver to his people. (See verse 6 
of this same chapter.) In 2 Chron. 29: 25 it is said: "Ac- 
cording to the commandment of David." In Ezra 3 : 10 the 
same distinction between what was commanded by God 
through Moses and what was commanded by David is kept 
up. Then Amos (6:5) pronounces a woe upon those who 
invent to themselves instruments of music like David. Da- 
vid was a good man in the main, did some things wrong, 
was not a lawgiver of God, and is condemned for inventing 
to himself instruments of music. The probability is, David 
only introduced them into the service, as the harps and in- 
struments were in existence before his day. If so, the woe 
was for using them as David did. There is as good, if not 
better, authority for infant church membership and for po- 
lygamy as there is for the use of instruments of music in the 
worship. There is none for either. 

INSURANCE, LIFE. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it right for a Christian to have his life in- 
sured? 

Life insurance is a method of laying up money to be 
paid our family after we are gone. If there is no wrong or 
injustice to others in securing this, it is as legitimate as any 
method of laying up money for one's family. 

There are some features that to me seem objectionable. 
The money used to keep up the life insurance is frequently 
taken from creditors and so fixed that they cannot get the 
benefit of it. The law, it seems to me, so arranges this as to 
encourage one to use money of his creditors for the benefit 
of his own family. Still, a man can be just and honest and 
not use money belonging to others for the benefit of his 
family, even though the law permits it. 

The chief objection with me is, the profits that are made 
out of the business come from the forfeitures and failures 



342 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of many who insure and those who are least able to bear 
them. A number of persons insure. If all keep up the in- 
surance, there can be no profit to pay the premium. The 
company depends upon the failure and forfeiture of a large 
number of those who pay in for its profits. Those who 
pay in and fail and forfeit are the poorer, the excitable 
class, and unfortunate class, least able to bear losses. 

I do not like the idea of endowing a family out of the 
misfortunes and failures of the poor. I am afraid God 
would not bless such an inheritance. 

While I do not like these features, I am not prepared to 
say one sins in insuring his life. I give the points that 
seem to me objectionable, and each must judge for himself. 

INTEREST AND USURY. 

What is the difference between usury spoken of in Lev. 25: 36; 
Deut. 23: 19; Neh. 5: 7; Ps. 15: 5; Jer. 25: 10, and our common in- 
terest? 

We remember once to have examined a passage in Ezekiel 
on the same subject, and the word rendered usury in the 
Hebrew just means interest, or increase — just about what 
we mean now by the word interest. And we think likely 
that is the sense in which the word is used in all the pas- 
sages referred to in the above. But it should be remem- 
bered that these passages belonged to the Jewish dispensa- 
tion, and not to the dispensation under which we live. We 
must look to the New Testament for the laws by which we 
are to be governed. E. G. S. 

INTEREST TAKEN ON LOANS. 

Please answer through the Gospel Advocate if the usury mentioned 
in Matt. 25: 27 means interest. Elsewhere we are told not to take 
usury. Are we to not take interest; or, if we do, is it wrong to lend 
money at more than the per cent allowed by law? Answer for the 
benefit of a friend of mine. 

All interest is usury. It was wrong for the Jew to lend 
to his poor brother for increase. It is certainly wrong for 
Christians to do it. And it is wrong for Christians to take 
more than the rate fixed by law, because we are commanded 
to obey the rulers. 

I do not think there is a clear law against taking increase, 
or usury, or hire, or rent (they are all the same), of those 
able to pay. 

ISA. 28: 20. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Isa. 28: 20: "For the bed is shorter 
than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering nar- 
rower than that he can wrap himself in it." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 343 

The connection of the verse shows that it is only a strong 
expression, showing that those that go their own ways and 
will not follow the word of the Lord will have no place to 
shield them from the judgments of the Lord when they 
come. Like the bed, their ways and their strength will be 
too short and too narrow to protect them from the anger 
of the Lord when he shall take vengeance upon the wicked. 
The Jewish people at the time of this utterance were very 
wicked, and the Lord through Isaiah was letting them know 
that all their defenses and their wisdom would be insuffi- 
cient to protect them from the ruin that he would bring 
upon them. 

ISHMAEL. 

What nation of people did Ishmael represent in being a wild man, 
whose hand was against every man and every man's hand against him? 
What was the blessing Jacob wanted when wrestling with the angel? 
How did Esau serve Jacob — i. e., what was the manner of his service, 
and what benefit was his service to Jacob? When did his service 
cease? Did the benefit of his service cease when his service ended? 

The Arabs are regarded as the descendants of Ishmael. 
They have been a warring, wild, predatory tribe, living off 
their neighbors, and, of course, warred upon by them. We 
do not suppose he wanted any one special blessing alone, but 
to be blessed with success and prosperity to himself and 
family in all their undertakings. We do not know in how 
many ways Esau may have served Jacob. We think the 
servitude was simply one of subserviency. Jacob was to 
be first; Esau, second. In his weakness of purpose, lack of 
persevering courage, he would in various ways administer 
to the success, prosperity, and prowess of his stronger, 
more courageous, persevering, and forceful brother. The 
same state of subserviency on the part of the one and of 
successful domination on the part of the other remained 
with their descendants so long as the cause that produced 
the superiority of the one and the inferiority of the other 
continued. The blessing and the cursing were not arbi- 
trary denunciations of persons, regardless of character. 
They were simply announcements of results that must fol- 
low certain causes in accordance with the great and fixed 
principle of divine law and government. Esau was fickle, 
easily discouraged, the slave of appetite, had no resolution 
to heroically endure present ill for future good, lacked faith 
and persistent trust in God and his overruling will. Jacob 
was gifted in those qualities that insure permanent prosper- 
ity under the operations of divine will ; and although, doubt- 
less, a less agreeable and pleasant personage, less amiable 
and companionable, than Esau, he pleased God as having 



344 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

confidence in him, a rugged but unyielding faith, and a true 
though unamiable obedience to God. Because God saw 
these things and recognized the results that would come 
of them through the working of the laws of God, he an- 
nounced what is called the blessing to Jacob, the curse to 
Esau — the loving or approving of Jacob, the hating or dis- 
approving of Esau. The blessing and the curse, the ap- 
proval and disapproval, being based upon causes growing 
out of fixed principles, not of personal partiality, they con- 
tinued to the extent and so long as the causes remained in 
force. 

When Esau's descendants or any portion of them turned 
from the evil character and causes that invited the curse 
from God, the curse was turned aside from those who had 
thus turned. Whenever Jacob's children or any portion of 
them turned from the course that brought the blessing, 
then the blessing was turned aside from those who had 
turned from the approved ways of God. 

Nothing is more clearly taught in the Bible than these 
principles of God's dealings with men ; and in every curse or 
blessing pronounced, these are always implied as the condi- 
tions on which the curse or the blessing is suspended. "At 
what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and con- 
cerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to 
destroy it ; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, 
turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil I thought to do 
unto them." (Jer. 18: 7, 8.) The same principle is appli- 
cable to individuals as we see in Ezek. 18. Then, in ac- 
cordance with prophecy made concerning Jacob and Esau, 
the necessary implication of the passage and the fixed prin- 
ciple on which God deals with men, if they or their de- 
scendants had changed their characters, their destinies and 
positions would have been changed. D. L. 

ISRAEL, HOW ALL, SAVED? 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Rom. 11: 26: "And so all Israel 
shall be saved." Also verse 29: "For the gifts and calling of God 
are without repentance." 

One construction placed on the expression, "all Israel 
shall be saved," is that after the Gentiles had been brought 
into the kingdom, then the Jews would turn and be led into 
the church. "And so all Israel shall be saved" meant all 
Israel shall be brought into the way of salvation. Another, 
and it seems to me the more correct, explanation is that 
the Jews had been broken off from the favor of God by un- 
belief; the Gentiles by faith had been grafted in. The 
fleshly Israel was not the true seed of Abraham, but spirit- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 345 

ual Israel was accounted the seed. The gospel had been 
preached to the Jews, and, when this was written, preached 
to the Gentiles. It would again be preached to the Jews. 
Some of these Jews would yet believe ; and, bringing those 
who believe, both Jew and Gentile, into one fold, they would 
constitute the true spiritual Israel that would be saved. 
All spiritual Israel will be saved. 

God called the Jews and bestowed gifts on them to bring 
them and the world to Christ. This calling of the Jews and 
the gifts bestowed on them he did not repent of, though 
many proved unworthy. 

JACOB SERVED LAB AN, HOW LONG? 

Brother Sewell: How long did Jacob serve Laban? (Gen. 31: 36- 
43.) Are you apprised of the forty-years theory? 

Yes, I am aware of the forty-years theory, but do not 
know whether it is correct or not and do not know any way 
to find out. He may have served other twenty years than 
those mentioned to Laban when he overtook him on his way 
back toward Canaan ; but if he did, we have no certain way 
of knowing it that I am aware of. And, besides, if he had, 
it is most likely he would have mentioned that also to Laban, 
while he was so careful to mention the fourteen years he 
served for his wife and the six afterwards. And, more- 
over, if he did, it is not a matter of such importance that 
knowing it or not knowing it can have anything to do with 
the great lesson taught in the history of Jacob. I shall ac- 
cept the twenty years' service till I see something else sub- 
stantiated; and if I ever do, then I will accept that. It 
may be that the calculations of time usually relied upon re- 
garding the chronology of those olden times are defective 
in many things, but I am very thankful that such mistakes 
as that have no connection with the inspiration and teach- 
ing of the Bible and need not in any wise affect any man's 
salvation. 

JAILER, WAS THE, BAPTIZED IN THE JAIL? 

In Acts 16 we have the conversion of the jailer. Was his residing 
place in the jail, and was he baptized in the jail with the water that 
was used in washing the stripes of the apostles, and was his house- 
hold baptized upon the jailer's confession? 

1. The house, or dwelling place, of the jailer was, no 
doubt, very near the jail, but not in it; for we read that 
he brought Paul and Silas out of the jail; and, next, they 
were in his house while the word was preached. His house 
was not the jail, for he had just brought them out of it; 
and if they had gone back into the jail, it would likely have 



346 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

been mentioned. The jail was one place and the jailer's 
house was another, as the passage plainly shows, no matter 
how near each other they may have been. 

2. The jailer was not baptized in the house, as the read- 
ing plainly shows. They were in his house while the 
preaching was going on ; but when the baptizing was over, 
he brought them into the house. This he could not have 
done unless they had gone out of his house. He brought 
them back, when the baptizing was over, into the same 
house they were in when the preaching was done, which 
shows that they must have gone out of the house to do the 
baptizing. And the passage explains itself by saying of 
the jailer that he took them. The word took, with the rest 
of the passages, shows that he took them somewhere out 
of the house, washed their stripes, and was baptized, and 
then brought them back into his house again. To say that 
he was baptized in the house is an assumption wholly 
against the facts in the case. 

3. The assumption that the jailer's household was bap- 
tized upon the confession of the jailer is an assumption 
still worse, if possible. The facts in the case show that the 
household of the jailer were competent to make their own 
confessions, for the passage says: "And when he brought 
them into his house, he set meat before them, and rejoiced, 
believing in God with all his house." He believed with his 
household. This he could not do unless they could believe, 
too. But he did believe with them; therefore they be- 
lieved as well as himself; and whenever persons are old 
enough to believe, they are old enough to make their own 
confessions and be baptized for themselves. False as- 
sumptions are well calculated to deceive the unwary and 
lead them astray, while the plain truth of God's word fol- 
lowed will lead to life everlasting. E. G. S. 

JERUSALEM, DESTRUCTION OF, AND THE END OF 
THE WORLD. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: You will please give us some light 
on Matt. 24. Was the Savior speaking of the destruction of the Jew- 
ish nation in all the chapter, or was he speaking of both the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and the end of the world? In reading this chapter 
at our church meeting we could not agree. Some thought the Savior 
was speaking altogether of the destruction of Jerusalem, while others 
thought he was speaking of both. 

We doubt not the Savior in this chapter had reference 
both to the destruction of Jerusalem and to the final end 
of the world. The Savior had said to the apostles regard- 
ing the temple that the time would come when it would be 
so thrown down that one stone should not be left upon an- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 347 

other. The disciples were, doubtless, much astonished at 
this, and asked: "When shall these things be? and what 
shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the 
world?" The question embraced the destruction of Jeru- 
salem and its temple and also the end of the world, and we 
think the answer embraces both. It is most likely that 
some of the things that occurred at the destruction of Je- 
rusalem will also occur at the end of time, and apply equally 
well to both. We have never yet been able to settle down 
upon the conclusion that all of Matt. 24 refers to the de- 
struction of Jerusalem, as there are some parts of it that 
we do not know how to reconcile with that event; but, al- 
lowing it to embrace both events, the difficulties all vanish, 
and all can be harmonized. We might not be able to sepa- 
rate and tell which of the passages certainly apply to one 
only and which to the other only or which alike to both; 
but allowing the chapter to embrace both harmonizes with 
other plain passages that do refer to the final end of time, 
and we believe in interpretations that harmonize. 

JESUS, THE FATHER OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please give your readers some 
light on Matt. 1: 18; Luke 2: 48. Was Joseph the father of Jesus, 
or was the Holy Spirit his father? 

Joseph was the reputed father of Christ, because he was 
the husband of Mary, his mother; and in this sense he is 
called his father. But Christ was begotten of the Holy 
Ghost, as is plainly declared in Matt. 1. E. G. S. 

JESUS AND THE FATHER, HOW ONE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please explain the latter 
part of John 14: 9: "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father." 
If God and Jesus are not literally one, how was it that when the dis- 
ciples had seen Jesus they had also seen the Father? 

The verse is explained in what immediately follows : "Be- 
lievest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in 
me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: 
but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the work." 
God dwelt in his Son while on earth and worked through 
him and spoke through him, and yet this does not make 
them literally one. Christ prayed that his disciples might 
be one, but this did not make them literally one in the sense 
of one person. Christ is said to have been in the form of 
God. (Phil. 2:6.) He was "the express image of his per- 
son." (Heb. 1: 3.) So that when Philip looked upon 
Jesus he saw the form of God, "the express image of his 
person/' saw one in whom the Father dwelt, and who pos- 



348 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

sessed the authority of God, and who spoke the words of 
God ; and in that sense when he saw Christ he saw the Fa- 
ther. But the very language which says Christ was the 
image of the Father's person shows he was not the Fa- 
ther's person, but only the image of it. Hence he and the 
Father were not the same person literally. E. G. S. 

JEWS, THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I wish you to tell us who the us 
refers to in Eph. 1 : 3. Was it the Jews, as a people, that God blessed 
"with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ?" Did he 
make known to the Jews, as a people, the mystery of his will? Did 
he abound unto them in all wisdom and prudence? 

The Jews, as a people, were never in Christ. They re- 
jected Christ. Rejecting him, they rejected all blessings 
that are in Christ or that come through him. "He came 
unto his own, and his own received him not. But as 
many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name." 

The only difficulty in reference to the passage is, whether 
the we and the us spoken of referred to all Christians or 
only to the apostles or to the Jewish Christians. It would 
seem to refer to all Christians, at least to Paul himself, the 
writer, and to those whom he addressed — the Christians at 
Ephesus, composed chiefly of Gentile converts. If to these, 
then to all Christians. 

The only difficulty in this construction is, in verse 13 ye 
seems to be placed in contrast with ive and us of the preced- 
ing verses. The contrast is kept up throughout the re- 
mainder of the letter. Paul always used / instead of we 
when speaking of himself. There are difficulties in the 
passage, but we are constrained to believe that the we re- 
fers to the inspired men, the apostles, with whom Paul 
classes himself. In the first twelve verses he, as is usual in 
his letters, introduces himself — shows how God has chosen 
him, blessed him, revealed his will to him, and made him 
an instructor of the people, an authoritative teacher of the 
will of God. He does it here as we instead of /. He en- 
ters into a defense of the whole apostolic college, inspired 
of God, and in asserting their authority asserts his own. 
After introducing himself thus, he tells the Ephesian Chris- 
tians: "In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the 
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation." From verse 
13 forward the letter is addressed to the Christians at Eph- 
esus. They all through the letter are addressed as ye. 
"Ye being in time past Gentiles." "Now therefore ye are 
no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 349 

the saints, and of the household of God ; and are built upon 
the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ 
himself being the chief corner stone ; in whom all the build- 
ing fitly framed together groweth unto a holy temple in the 
Lord : in whom ye also are builded together for a habitation 
of God through the Spirit." The whole letter is addressed 
to the point of showing that, though they had been aliens, 
in contrast with Jews in the dispensation of Moses, now, 
under Christ, they were of the same household, with equal 
privileges and common rights with those who before them 
had been chosen as keepers of the law of God and were the 
first called into the church of God. D. L. 

"JEW," THE, "HEBREW," AND "ISRAEL." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: What difference is there between 
the Jew, Hebrew, and the children of Israel? It has always been 
my opinion that they were all the same people, and they were God's 
chosen people. I was talking with a Baptist preacher, and he said 
all that were dwelling at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost were 
Jews. The Book teaches me that there were people dwelling there 
from every nation under heaven. Why is it that there were so many 
different languages at Jerusalem if they were all Jews? 

Hebrews, Jews, Israelites, all refer to the same people — 
the descendants of Jacob. It is true the Jew at one time 
indicated that part of the nation that clung to the house of 
David in the days of Rehoboam. They took their name 
from Judah, the leading tribe that remained faithful, while 
Israel applied to the ten tribes that revolted from the house 
of David and went after Jeroboam. But afterwards, and 
especially in New Testament times, all were called Jews, 
Israelites, Hebrews. 

It is also true that the term Hebreiv was used more spe- 
cifically in the New Testament to refer to that portion of 
the Jews who remained in the land of Canaan in contradis- 
tinction to the Jews who, in the wars and strifes, wandered 
off into other nations to seek a living. Such is the use of it 
when it is said the Grecians murmured "against the He- 
brews, because their widows were neglected in the daily 
ministration." (Acts 6: 1.) The Grecians were Jews 
who had wandered into Greece and had come up to Jeru- 
salem at the Pentecost. The Hebrews were those who 
dwelt in the land of Canaan. 

All at Jerusalem were Jews or proselytes to the Jewish 
religion. "There were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout 
men, out of every nation under heaven." They spoke dif- 
ferent languages, because they had been born and had 
grown up among different people, speaking different lan- 
guages, and each had learned the language of the people 



350 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

with which he lived — just as now Jews dwelling in France 
speak the French language, Jews dwelling in Germany 
speak German, Jews dwelling in Spain speak Spanish, Jews 
dwelling in England speak English, etc. Each spoke the 
language of the people with whom he was reared, and each 
heard the apostles speak in their language. 

JEWS, GOD'S DEALING WITH, AND GENTILES. 

Brother Lipscomb : You will confer a favor upon us by explaining 
Rom. 11: 32. Who is meant by the words them all. We think it 
only refers to Israel, including those that had not gone astray, men- 
tioned in the first of the chapter, with those that had; but the elders 
and some other brethren of our church think it implies all men — 
those to whom Paul was writing the same as those he was talking 
about. 

The connection shows that Paul was justifying God in 
his course toward the Jews and the Gentiles. The Jews had 
believed in him, but had to a great extent lost that faith. 
At any rate, they violated his law so greatly that he con- 
ceded them all, Jews and Gentiles, unbelievers, and dealt 
with both Jew and Gentile as unbelievers, and justified both 
through faith in Christ — that is, through their coming to 
believe and obey God through Christ. He is here, of course, 
speaking of the provision of mercy made in Christ. D. L. 

JEWS, SALVATION OF THE, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Will all the Jews be saved who lived prior 
to Christ simply because they suffered a physical death for the trans- 
gression of the law of Moses? How are the Jews justified by faith 
and Gentiles through faith? (2) The Gospel Advocate of August 30, 
quoting from Lard's Quarterly of 1868, says "God is spirit," not "a 
spirit." Is this the right teaching or not? Is this passage in the 
Authorized Version properly translated? 

(1) No Jew will be saved in heaven because he died on 
earth. Men cannot pay for the sins they commit by any- 
thing they can do or suffer. God dealt with the Jews as 
he does with all other people. If they believed and obeyed 
him, he blessed them ; if they disobeyed him, they suffered 
the penalties of his violated law. To impress these truths 
with respect to spiritual and eternal interests, God gave 
the law of Moses, and under it applied the law to temporal 
and seen affairs, so they would be schooled to understand 
and obey the spiritual and eternal laws. This was done 
not only to teach the Jews, but they are written for our in- 
struction. But all men die as the Jews did. If xieath 
atoned for their sins, it would atone for the sins of all who 
sin and die. It would be much nearer the truth to say 
those who sinned and died before entering the land of Ca- 
naan would never enter the heavenly Canaan. But this is 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL 351 

not correct; for Moses and Aaron were both debarred an 
entrance into Canaan, yet are both saved in heaven. Men 
who suffer here for righteousness' sake will be rewarded in 
the world to come. But one who brings suffering upon 
himself in this world by his sinful course will not be saved 
from the eternal suffering thereby. 

(2) I think the purpose of Jesus was to lead the woman 
of Samaria away from the material forms which they wor- 
shiped, such as the calf, and from the idea that there were 
certain localities for worship, as Jerusalem and the moun- 
tain of Samaria, and bring her to realize that God was 
spirit, and not matter, and that he would be worshiped 
wherever and whenever man could approach him with his 
spirit, or with the heart. To say God is worshiped with 
the spirit is the same as to say all the service man renders 
him must be from the heart and of faith. "Without faith 
it is impossible to please God" means exactly the same as 
to say that all service of God must be from the heart. The 
meaning of this passage is: Inasmuch as God is a Spirit, 
not matter, he must be served by the spirit of man, not 
simply by material forms and in localities. The common 
translation is correct, and I think the criticism implied in 
the quotation from Lard is a distinction without a differ- 
ence. 

JEWISH WORSHIP, INSTRUMENTS IN. 

Brother Lipscomb: More than a year ago I asked you, without 
quoting the verse, to explain 2 Chron. 29: 25, which you endeavored 
to do, but apparently without regard to the latter clause of the 
verse, which you also failed to include in your quotation of the verse. 
The explanation was not entirely satisfactory to myself nor to some 
of the brethren who occupy different sides to this question and are 
anxious to know the truth. I am in line with the Gospel Advocate on 
this subject, but I am troubled over the latter clause of this verse in 
connection with Ps. 98, both of which I hope you will explain. The 
clause reads thus, "For so was the commandment of the Lord by his 
prophets," which does seem conclusive that the instruments were used 
in the worship by divine approval, under the old dispensation, while 
you claimed they were not. Is Ps. 98 prophetic? If so, does it not 
refer to this dispensation; and, if so, is it good authority for using 
the instrument in our worship to-day? 

There is not the least doubt but that God tolerated in- 
struments of music in the days of Judaism. He did not 
command them to make and use them; he permitted it, just 
as he permitted polygamy, slavery, and divorce for any 
cause. God told Samuel to let them have a king, notwith- 
standing he testified that in choosing him "they have re- 
jected me, that I should not reign over them." (1 Sam. 8: 
7.) Notwithstanding this, he directed Samuel to anoint the 
king for them and aided them in the work of the kingdom. 



352 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Jehoiada, the priest and servant of God, took two wives for 
King Joash. Yet Jesus says this was not God's order, but 
he tolerated it because of the hardness of their hearts, and 
directed in getting wives. Then if the Lord had com- 
manded them how and when to use the instruments after 
they were introduced by David, it would only prove God 
was tolerating it and its use as he tolerated polygamy. 
That would no more prove it should be used now than the 
toleration and regulation of polygamy or easy divorce then 
prove polygamy and divorce for any cause should be prac- 
ticed now. Suppose God had commanded its use then, 
would it prove it should be used now ? He ordained annual 
sacrifices and incense then; are they to be practiced now? 
Suppose God had ordained it in the Jewish dispensation 
and not have required it in the Christian dispensation, 
would that justify its use now? The Christian can prac- 
tice nothing as service to God required under the law of 
Moses unless it is required in the New Testament. In- 
stead of this instrumental music being required, the evi- 
dence is clear that it was dropped out by Christ and his 
apostles, and was not introduced into the church for six 
hundred years — then among the Catholics, who claim the 
right to change the appointments of God. 

I have written this to show that whether we explain this 
passage or not, there is not the shadow of ground in it for 
the use of instruments in the worship of God. It is not 
required in the New Testament and interferes with and 
hinders the ends to be accomplished by singing. They 
were to admonish and teach one another in psalms and 
hymns and spiritual songs, making melody in the heart to 
the Lord. Now, the instrumental music hinders the result 
of the singing, as it prevents hearing what is sung. But 
let it be settled that if God had commanded it in the Jewish 
dispensation, that would not give the shadow of authority 
for its use under Christ. But did God ordain it? In this 
very context it says: "And he set the Levites in the house 
of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with harps, 
according to the commandment of David, and of Gad the 
king's seer, and Nathan the prophet: for so was the com- 
mandment of the Lord by his prophets. And the Levites 
stood with the instruments of David, and the priests with 
the trumpets [the trumpets were commanded by God]." 
(2 Chron. 29: 25, 26.) Then the next verse says: "And 
when the burnt offering began, the song of the Lord began 
also with the trumpets, and with the instruments ordained 
by David king of Israel." Here it is repeated they were 
ordained and commanded by David; they are kept distinct 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 353 

from trumpets commanded by the Lord. (See also 2 Chron. 
23: 18; 1 Chron. 23: 5; Neh. 12: 36; Amos 6: 5.) In all 
these places, and more, they are attributed to David, in con- 
trast with the things ordained by God, and in Amos 6 : 5 
David is especially condemned. The whole kingdom was a 
rebellion against God, which he permitted as an experi- 
ment to show what they would do in going their own way. 
This instrumental service was tolerated in connection with 
other things to add greatness to the kingdom. 

I never heard that any one thought Ps. 98 was prophetic. 
It is simply an exhortation to praise God for the prosperity 
he had bestowed on Israel. If prophetic, it was not fulfilled 
by Christ and his apostles, but only by the corrupted church. 
As David had invented the instruments, he urged they 
should praise God with them. 

It seems to me every candid man would say the conclu- 
sions set forth are correct, with that clause: 'Tor so was 
the commandment of the Lord by his prophets." It will be 
noted that in the scripture the words so was are in Italics, 
which means they are not in the original and have been sup- 
plied by the translators. This is done because they could 
not make sense out of the original as they translated it. 
The Revised Version reads : "And he set the Levites in the 
house of the Lord with cymbals, with psalteries, and with 
harps, according to the commandment of David, and of Gad 
the king's seer, and Nathan the prophet : for the command- 
ment was of the Lord by his prophets." Does this refer to 
a commandment to use the instruments? He had just said 
that was by David. He evidently refers to the command 
to keep this feast, described in verses 20-24. After say- 
ing this instrumental service was by the commandment of 
David, he does not contradict himself and say it was by the 
command of God. The keeping of the feast was com- 
manded by God, but the instruments were by the command 
of David. But look at this as we may,. it affords no ground 
for the use of instruments in the church of God. 

JOB WAS AFFLICTED, HOW LONG? 

Brother Lipscomb: Tell us how long Job was afflicted with the 
sores. 

We know of no data for determining, with any definite- 
ness, this question; nor did I ever see an opinion on the 
subject. In thinking of it, I would say it lasted him for 
a season — a few months. First, it was common among the 
patriarchs to come up yearly with offerings to the Lord, 
as it became the law among the Jews. It is thought the 
day when the sons of God came to present themselves be- 



354 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

fore the Lord referred to this yearly gathering. On one 
God gave permission to Satan to strip Job of his property, 
children — all that he had. This was done. Job remained 
faithful. On the next annual gathering before the Lord, 
God delivered him to Satan to afflict his person. This was 
done with sores and boils very soon. He was afflicted long 
enough for his friends of Tamen, Shuah, and Naaman to 
hear of it and come to mourn with and comfort him. Life 
was long and people did not hurry then. They doubtless 
camped in tents, as most of the men of the East did, both at 
home and especially in traveling. They remained seven 
days before they approached him, and then through the pe- 
riod of his affliction. While it is not so said, the facts indi- 
cate that they remained until his recovery, and he made of- 
ferings for them. It is possible this did not occur during 
their stay, but the facts strongly point to it. I would, then, 
say it all occurred within the dry season of the year — three 
or four months. 

We know nothing of the age in which he lived, save what 
we gather from his surroundings. His herds in different 
places and the marauding bands of thieves would favor 
an early age. He was old enough when introduced to us 
to have seven sons and three daughters. The eldest brother 
has a home and house of his own, and the other nine are 
all at his house feasting and drinking wine. This would 
show they were all probably well grown. The children 
were killed ; the affliction of boils came upon him. He 
must have been what would now be called "a man well ad- 
vanced in age." He was healed, seven sons and three 
daughters were again born to him, and he lived after he was 
healed one hundred and forty years, gained riches, and 
enjoyed prosperity greater than before. 

I think the circumstances would indicate that the afflic- 
tion and healing occurred within one season of the year — 
the dry season — within from three to six months. This is 
the best we can do for it. D. L. 

JOHN 1: 13 EXPLAINED. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell : Please explain John 1 : 13 through 
the Gospel Advocate. It reads as follows: "Which were born, not of 
blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." 
Who is the person or persons alluded to? What is the antecedent of 
the word ivhich in the verse? Also, is it a proper rendering of the 
original? t 

As to the translation of the above passage, we do not 
know that it could be very materially improved. The pas- 
sage is of general import, applying to any that may do as 
therein indicated. The gospel by John was not written, as 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 355 

is generally conceded, till long after the kingdom of Christ 
was established ; and if we apply it to persons living since 
the establishment of the church, it just means that all per- 
sons who receive by obedience the gospel, which is the only 
way now to receive Christ, are born of God, born according 
to the will (the word) of God, and not according to the will 
of man. And even if it be applied to those who lived in the 
time of Christ's personal ministry, the same principle is 
true. Those that received and obeyed the preaching of 
John, of Christ himself, of the twelve or the seventy, may 
be said to have been born of God, because in that case they 
had to hear and believe the word that was preached to them, 
also had to repent and be baptized ; and in so doing they 
were born of God. We feel no particular concern, there- 
fore,' as to which application is given. In either case they 
gained their new relationship, not by a fleshly birth, but by 
a birth according to the word of God. E. G. S. 

JOHN 3: 5. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you be so kind as to explain John 3: 5? 
I have a good brother, who is a preacher, who takes the position that 
a man must be born of water before he is born of the Spirit, because 
water is named first. The brother, furthermore, says that the beget- 
ting is no part of birth. 

The language is figurative, or after the order of a par- 
able. The fleshly birth, we all know, is used to illustrate a 
spiritual renewal and bringing forth. In the natural birth, 
the basis of the figure, it is common to say a man is born 
of his parents — of his mother and his father. This expres- 
sion always embraces the begettal by the father and the 
bringing forth by the mother. It is customary in speaking 
of the fleshly birth to place the mother first, as more di- 
rectly connected with the completed process of this birth. 
This does not mean that the office of the mother is per- 
formed before that of the father. It may mean that it is 
the most clearly seen and the first suggested to the mind. 
We have the expression, "born of God" — "born, not of 
blood, . . . but of God" (John 1: 13) ; "whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin" (1 John 3:9); "every 
one that loveth is born of God" (1 John 4:7; see also 1 
John 5: 1; 4: 18). It is not meant that the persons were 
developed in God as the child is in the mother's womb and 
brought forth out of, or separate from, him. It means 
only he was begotten of God as the child is begotten of his 
father. The Spirit of God is imparted into the spirit of 
man. Then the term born, when applied to both parents, 
includes the begetting of the father and the bringing forth 
of the mother. That a man is born of two processes is 



356 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

clearly recognized here in the Spirit and the water. Now, 
the man is never enveloped in the Spirit and delivered from 
it as the child is from its mother. Then the birth of the 
Spirit cannot correspond to the office the mother performs 
in the fleshly birth. It does correspond to the office of the 
father. The spirit, or heart, of man is impregnated with 
the Spirit of God. The enveloping in and deliverance of 
the person from the water does correspond to the deliver- 
ance of the child from the womb. This is the correspond- 
ence — the natural interpretation, and the true one. To be 
born of water and Spirit is to be begotten of the Spirit and 
brought forth of the water, just as the child is born of the 
mother and father. 

JOHN 3: 8. 

Will you please explain John 3:8? We have it in our lesson, and 
there is some difference on it. 

The verse is the following: "The wind bloweth where it 
listeth, and thou nearest the sound thereof, but canst not 
tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one 
that is born of the Spirit." This verse is a prophetic al- 
lusion by the Savior to the work of the Spirit of God in con- 
version. To ascertain, therefore, how the Spirit did this 
work, the best way is to go to Acts 2, where the Spirit 
came and began the work, and there learn how he did it. 
When we go there, we find that he came miraculously upon 
the apostles, that they were all filled with him, and began 
to speak as he gave them utterance. Thus the Spirit 
spake through the apostles to the people in their own lan- 
guage. On that day three thousand were converted by the 
Spirit — not by some secret, mysterious influence, but by 
preaching the gospel through the apostles and teaching the 
people to believe, repent, and be baptized, promising par- 
don upon the doing of these things. And when people hear 
and obey these same words of the Spirit now, they are made 
Christians in the same way. So far as the Bible records, 
no man was ever made a Christian by any secret or direct 
influence of the Spirit upon his heart ; but tens of thousands 
have been, and still are, made Christians by the words of 
the Spirit through the apostles. If all could realize the 
truth of this, there would soon be a wonderful revolution 
in the religious world on the subject of conversion. Preach- 
ers—and many of them, too — are constantly teaching that 
sinners are converted by a secret, direct work of the Spirit 
upon their hearts, and use the above verse in support of it. 
The Savior had no reference to anything of the sort when 
he used the above language, as is plainly evinced through- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 357 

out the book of conversions — Acts of Apostles. Not one 
soul, so far as that book records, was converted, as now 
thought, by a secret influence of the Spirit. Yet those who 
obey the teaching of the Spirit through the apostles are as 
thoroughly converted by the Spirit of God as if the Spirit 
were poured directly into every one's heart for that pur- 
pose. E. G. S. 

JOHN FIRST EPISTLE 1: 8 AND 3: 9 RECONCILED. 

Brother Seivell: Will you please reconcile 1 John 1: 8 and 1 John 
3: 9 through the Gospel Advocate? 

The verse in the first chapter says : "If we say that we 
have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in 
us." The one in the third chapter says : "Whosoever is 
born of God doth not commit sin ; for his seed remaineth in 
him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God." The 
first of these verses is spoken with reference to the weak- 
ness and imperfections of humanity as such. No man is 
able to live sinlessly perfect. Strive as he may, the flesh is 
so weak that through this weakness he will sometimes do 
wrong, or fall short of duty. "The spirit is willing, but the 
flesh is weak," said Jesus ; and one of the greatest manifes- 
tations of God's mercy is that he provided for the pardon 
of sins committed through weakness of the flesh when our 
purpose and efforts are to do right. But the one in the 
third chapter is in reference to the purpose and aim to do 
right as contrasted with the wicked people of the world 
who do not even try to do the Lord's will. The next verse 
says: "In this the children of God are manifest, and the 
children of the devil." A humble and faithful child of God 
is striving constantly to do right and to avoid all wrong, 
while wicked people are all the time doing wrong, all the 
time living a rebellious life in the sight of God. A child 
of God, in whom the seed of the kingdom, the word of God, 
is the ruling principle of life, will never, can never, will- 
fully, purposely sin. But through weakness of the flesh 
the best of them are liable to sin ; and if they say they sin 
.not, they deceive themselves and the truth is not in them. 
Yet it may be said of them at the same time that purposely, 
willfully, presumptuously, they cannot sin. E. G. S. 

JONAH, THE PREACHING OF, ETC. 

Brother Seivell: Please explain the following passages: (1) Matt. 
12: 20. (2) Matt. 12: 31-34, 41, 42. (3) What did Jonah preach? 

(1) This verse is a quotation from the Old Testament, 
giving, in part, and in figurative language, the character 
of the Son of God. "A bruised reed shall he not break, 



358 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth 
judgment unto victory." This is the verse, and it means 
that the Son of God would not be a violent man — would 
not do things by physical force as kings and warriors, 
and become a great conqueror, and bring the world under 
him in that sort of way. A bruised reed would be easily 
broken, but there would not be enough of physical force 
used by the Son of God in his work of saving the world to 
be illustrated by breaking a bruised reed or the putting 
out of smoking flax. The Pharisees had just held a counsel 
to destroy him, and he had left that place and had gone 
into another that he might avoid any conflict of violence 
at that period of his mission. The time had not then come 
for his death, and so he got away from a violent tumult. 
But when the time came for him to die to redeem others, 
he was as meek and gentle as a lamb through that mock 
trial. Not one angry word did he speak, not one violent 
act did he perform, through all that terrible ordeal; yet 
in that unresisting death and triumph over the grave he 
achieved the grandest victory of all time and has arranged 
for the settlement of all destinies in eternity. 

(2) In these verses the Savior is showing the difference 
between ordinary sins — sins through weaknesses or im- 
pulse — and blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. Through 
the gospel plan of salvation all manner of sins can be for- 
given, except this one matter of blasphemy against the Holy 
Spirit. The whole revelation of the plan of salvation is 
made to us by the Holy Spirit. We cannot possibly reach 
or form a single conception of salvation, except as the Holy 
Spirit reveals it to us. To blaspheme is to speak impiously 
or contemptuously of things sacred or divine. So when a 
man speaks blasphemously against the Spirit, he cuts him- 
self loose from any and every possible source of light or 
information regarding salvation. It is like a man going up 
into a tree and out on a limb for safety, and then cutting 
off the limb between himself and the tree. There is nothing 
left then but for him to fall into whatever danger is be- 
neath. If a man in any way rejects or repudiates the 
teaching of the Spirit through the words of the apostles, 
he forever cuts himself loose from all possibility of reaching 
salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord. Men may spec- 
ulate and theorize about the sin against the Holy Spirit; 
but it remains true that any man that is so rash as to blas- 
pheme, speak impiously of, or in any way cut loose from the 
teaching of the Spirit of God through the truth, will be sure 
to lose his soul. To say of the words of the Spirit, the word 
of God, that it is a dead letter, and to adhere to that posi- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 359 

tion, is to cut himself off from all possible chance of salva- 
tion. Verses 41, 42 still further illustrate the same idea. 
The men of Nineveh heard and heeded the preaching of Jo- 
nah and escaped destruction. The ''queen of the south" 
recognized the wisdom of God through Solomon when she 
went from far-off Africa to hear him. But the Jewish peo- 
ple rejected the teaching and claims of the Son of God, al- 
though the Spirit of God was in him without measure. 
They even accused him of casting out demons through Beel- 
zebub, the prince of demons. In so doing they cut them- 
selves loose from all chance of salvation through him, show- 
ing plainly that they were worse than the men of Nineveh 
and the "queen of the south," because they regarded the 
word of God, the words of the Holy Spirit, through Jonah 
and Solomon. 

(3) Jonah preached that within forty days the city of 
Nineveh would be destroyed if the people did not repent. 
They repented, however, and the city was not destroyed 
then; but they would have been destroyed if they had not 
repented. These are the things the Savior referred to re- 
garding the preaching of Jonah. 

JUDAS, THE FATE OF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Matt. 27: 5, which 
reads: "And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and de- 
parted, and went and hanged himself." Also, Acts 1 : 18, which 
reads: "Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; 
and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bow- 
els gushed out." I understand this to be the same Judas, buj, cannot 
understand why these two verses differ. 

Judas hung himself. The rope broke ; he fell, burst his 
belly, and his bowels gushed out. We do not see how any 
one can fail to see it. D. L. 

JUDAS, WAS HE THE VICTIM OF PROPHECY? 

Brother Sewell: Was Judas the victim of the prophecy that some 
one was to betray Christ into the hands of his enemies, or was he the 
character he made himself? And if he were what he had made him- 
self, is that why he was chosen one of the twelve? 

I do not think Judas was any victim of prophecy — that is, 
I am fully satisfied that Judas was not foreordained and 
decreed beforehand to be the very one that should betray 
the Son of God. But it is probable that he was chosen 
among the apostles because Jesus knew that he was forming 
the very character that would do anything like that when- 
ever an opportunity should be given. God never made any 
such decrees as that on any one. Nebuchadnezzar was se- 
lected of God to destroy Tyre, Egypt, and Jerusalem — not 



360 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

by individual predestination before he was born, but he 
put him into that work because he had formed a character 
suitable every way for it, and for that reason God put him 
into it. So when the time was near that Jesus was to be 
betrayed into the hands of his enemies, Judas was chosen 
because he was fitting himself to do just such work. It was 
no more an eternal decree that Judas should betray Jesus 
than any other one of the apostles, but because he was 
known by the Lord to be the very sort of character that 
should do the work to be done in order to the establishment 
of the plan of salvation. Judas is spoken of as the very 
sort of character to do that sort of thing before the time 
came for it to be done. This was said of him : " Jesus an- 
swered them, Did not I choose you the twelve, and one of 
you is a devil? Now he spake of Judas the son of Simon 
Iscariot, for he it was that should betray him, being one of 
the twelve." (John 6: 70, 71.) The word devil means 
that he was wicked, under the influence of wicked aspira- 
tions. The word devil in this passage is from the word 
diabolos, which means "a false accuser, treacherous, a 
traitor." This signifies that Judas was already the very 
sort of character to do the work to be done. So in saying 
he was the one that should betray him, it only means that 
he was the very sort of man that would betray him when 
the time came — not that he was foreordained to do it, but 
that he would do it of his own accord. Again, Jesus said : 
"For the Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: 
but woe unto that man through whom the Son of man is 
betrayed! good were it for that man if he had not been 
born." (Matt. 26: 24.) This shows how wicked Judas 
was— that he was so wicked as to deserve an awful doom. 
But it is clear that he made himself thus wicked by pur- 
suing a wicked course in life. On another occasion, when 
Mary had anointed the feet of Jesus with a very costly oint- 
ment that filled the house with the odor, "Judas Iscariot, 
one of his disciples, that should betray him, saith, Why 
was not this ointment sold for three hundred shillings, and 
given to the poor ? Now this he said, not because he cared 
for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the 
bag took away what was put therein." (John 12: 4-6.) 
These passages show that the bent of his mind was in the 
wrong direction and that he was responsible for it. This 
one shows that he loved money and would do anything that 
would bring money into his hands. There is but one pas- 
sage that even intimates anything favorable in his charac- 
ter, and that was when he had betrayed Jesus and the chief 
priests had placed condemnation upon him. He came hast- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 361 

ily into that assembly, brought the money back that they 
had paid him to deliver up Jesus to them, and offered it 
back to them, saying that he had sinned in that he had be- 
trayed innocent blood. But they refused to receive it. He 
then threw the money down at their feet and went out and 
hanged himself. 

The thing that seems to at least cast a shadow in a fa- 
vorable direction for Judas is the statement that he "re- 
pented himself." (See first part of Matt. 27.) But there 
is one hitch in that. The word rendered repent in that case 
is the Greek word metamelomai, which is never one time 
used where repentance is commanded in connection with 
obedience to the gospel. In fact, it is not used more than 
half a dozen times in the New Testament, all told. So 
there is no certainty that his repentance indicated a better 
life. Where repentance is commanded in view of a better 
life, the Greek word metanoeo is used, as when sinners are 
commanded to repent. The repentance of Judas may have 
been no more than a sort of regret, fearing some bodily 
harm would be done to him for what he had done. Any- 
way, there is no evidence that he meant any change of life 
morally. Hence there is precious little room for sympathy 
on the ground of fatality through decrees or as to any 
thought that he meant really a betterment of his life be- 
yond some sort of regret for that one deed. The apostle 
Peter also said some very strong things in regard to Judas 
and his character and destiny. (See Acts 1.) 

JUDAS, WAS HE COMPELLED TO BETRAY CHRIST? 

Brother Seivell: There was some discussion in our Sunday school 
recently as to our Savior's betrayal. One brother of some intelli- 
gence advanced the idea that it was a matter of compulsion on the 
part of Judas in order to fulfill a prophecy. Kindly explain this in 
full. 

I know of no scriptural reason for any one to say that 
Judas betrayed the Savior under compulsion. If he was 
compelled to do such a deed, then God must have com- 
pelled him. If he did, then Judas was not to be blamed in 
the matter. In that case it would not have been the deed 
of Judas at all, and there could have been no guilt upon 
him if he was compelled to do it. It would have been the 
deed of God himself, if he compelled Judas to do the deed. 
But the Scriptures put a very different phase upon it, as 
the following indicates : 'Then one of the twelve, who was 
called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests, and said, 
What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto 
you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver. 



362 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him 
unto them." (Matt. 26: 14-16.) I do not see how lan- 
guage could more plainly express a voluntary transaction 
than this language does in regard to Judas. He speaks as 
if it was altogether a matter of his own choice, and no mat- 
ter of compulsion about it. It is very true that God or- 
dained that Christ should be put to death, but he did not or- 
dain that Judas was the particular man that should betray 
him. The proposition he made to the priests plainly indi- 
cated that if they would pay him a satisfactory amount he 
would deliver him unto them ; but at the same time it indi- 
cated that he would not, if they did not pay a satisfactory 
amount. Hence the proposition plainly shows a voluntary 
transaction on the part of Judas. This transaction was 
before the passover night, and it is said that "from that 
time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them." The 
whole passage shows that it was a voluntary and deliberate 
transaction on the part of Judas. God does not decree that 
certain men shall do certain wicked things and then destroy 
them for it ; but he does decree that if men will do wickedly, 
they shall suffer for it. 

Another passage says Judas was "a thief." (John 12 : 6.) 
Jesus also said: "Did not I choose you the twelve, and one 
of you is a devil?" (John 6: 70.) God did not make him 
a devil ; but Christ likely chose him because he was already 
one, and was the very man that would do that awful deed 
for money when the opportunity was offered; and so he 
did. Jesus also said to the apostles that one of them 
would betray him, and that it would be the one that dipped 
his hand with him in the dish; and he then said: "The 
Son of man goeth, even as it is written of him: but woe 
unto that man through whom the Son of man is betrayed ! 
good were it for that man if he had not been born. And 
Judas, who betrayed him, answered and said, Is it I, Rabbi ? 
He saith unto him, Thou hast said." (Matt, 26: 20-25.) 
When Jesus said, "Thou hast said," it was as much as if 
he had said: "Yes, you are the very man." Because men 
get wicked and fit themselves for destruction is no proof 
that God has foreordained that they should of necessity 
be wicked ; but he has decreed that those who will be wicked 
and will not serve him shall be eternally lost. Such was 
the case with Judas. It is also a fact not to be forgotten 
that Judas fully confessed his own guilt in the betrayal. 
"Then Judas, who betrayed him, when he saw that he was 
condemned, repented himself, and brought back the thirty 
pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, I 
have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 363 

(Matt. 27: 3-5.) Thus he shouldered the whole matter, 
saying: "I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent 
blood." This settles the whole matter, showing that Judas 
acted on his own volition, not under an unalterable decree, 
saying: "I have sinned." And when the priests would not 
do anything toward relieving him from his sin, his con- 
science goaded him so heavily that he threw down the 
money at their feet and went out and hanged himself. 
Thus he fully and squarely assumed the whole responsi- 
bility and did not even hint that he was compelled to do 
what he had done. 

JUDAS, HOW THE DEVIL INFLUENCED. 

Please explain John 13: 2. Was it a subtile influence over which 
he had no control? 

The expression is: "The devil having now put into the 
heart of Judas Iscariot, ... to betray him." The in- 
fluence was just such as presents itself in the way of temp- 
tation to every individual in life. All men are tempted to 
do evil by the presentation of motives. Every man is 
tempted to steal at some time in his life, to commit adultery, 
to kill. The devil is the author of all temptation to sin. 
I take it, he tempted Judas in this way. Judas was a 
money lover. The prospects of Jesus were under a cloud. 
It seemed that he was about to fail. The suggestion came 
to Judas that as Jesus is about to fail, you can make money 
by betraying him. His weak faith, his lack of true 
strength of character, and his love of money caused him to 
yield and betray the Savior. Every other disciple was 
tempted as he was. They did not feel it so strongly, be- 
cause they would not parley with it ; their strength of char- 
acter was greater. They had a truer regard for right, 
hence did not run in the way of temptation. We can see 
nothing in the influence brought to bear on Judas differ- 
ent from that brought to bear on any other man that par- 
leys with the evil. Nor do we believe Judas' sin was 
greater than that of any other being who deliberately be- 
trays right for the sake of gain. There are thousands of 
men in the church, even among the teachers in the church, 
that for gain and popularity betray the truth, do the same 
thing that Judas did, make for themselves the same char- 
acter; only they do not show his remorse nor have the 
grace to hang themselves, as he hung himself ; but they will 
share the same fate in eternity. 



364 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

JUDAS, WAS HE AT THE SUPPER? 

Was Judas Iscariot at the Lord's Supper in the city? And at 
what supper was it that his hand was on the table? (Luke 22: 21.) 

Any one can take the accounts given (Matt. 26 : 24 ; Mark 
14: 18; Luke 22: 14-21), and in reading these he has all 
the scriptures bearing on the subject before him. They 
speak of the twelve being present at the Supper, of Judas 
being present ; and then the Savior commanded : "Drink ye 
all of it." There is no account of Judas or any of them 
having left. John (13: 30) says: "He then having re- 
ceived the sop went immediately out." Some think this 
meant before the Supper was finished, but I have always 
thought Judas partook of the Supper before going out. I 
think no one would have doubted this, but that they think 
the Savior ought not to have done it. They construe the 
language to make it teach what they think was proper for 
the Savior to do, and not according to its natural import. 
This is wrong and will pervert the whole Scriptures. The 
reason for this interpretation is, they think it is wrong to 
participate when wicked persons do it. I think it morally 
certain that the inspired apostles participated in the Lord's 
Supper with Ananias and Sapphira ; and we presume there 
has never been an occasion of observing the Lord's Sup- 
per from that day to this but that persons unworthy have 
participated in the observance. 

JUDGE THE WORLD, CHRIST COMING TO. 

Please give me all the information you can through the Gospel Ad- 
vocate on Matt. 16 : 27, 28. 

Verse 27 has reference to the time when Christ will come 
with the angels to judge the world — the final end of time, 
when time shall be wound up and all men receive the re- 
ward of their doing, when the righteous shall be taken 
home to everlasting bliss and the wicked will be cast into 
everlasting ruin. Verse 20 refers to the establishment of 
his kingdom on earth. We are not to understand a literal 
personal coming of the Messiah is meant, but a coming in 
his kingdom, when his personal reign shall begin. He came 
in his kingdom on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit 
came in power upon his apostles and enabled them to fully 
establish the kingdom of Christ upon earth; and all the 
apostles, save Judas, were still living when the kingdom 
of Christ came. 

JUDGING, THE SCRIPTURES ON. 

Brother Lipscomb: I would like to have the scriptures on judging. 
It seems that in some things we are to judge and be judged, and that 
in other things we are neither to judge nor be judged. I would also 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 365 

like for some one to show the relation of the mercy of God to the 
mercy of man. After a man has accepted God's mercy in making a 
way possible for man to work out his own salvation, is he then de- 
pendent upon his own mercy for eternal life? We pray to God to for- 
give us as we have forgiven our fellow men. "With what measure ye 
mete, it shall be measured to you again." Therefore with the same 
mercy that we show in judging others or in our dealings with them we 
shall be judged by the Lord. 

We are commanded: "Judge not, that ye be not judged. 
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and 
with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you 
again." (Matt. 7: 1, 2.) The word judge here clearly 
means to judge harshly or unjustly. Do not be too ready 
to judge evil of persons, for you will be so judged as you 
judge. Then there are cases in which Christians must 
judge in the sense of determining what is right between 
man and man and what is right for us to do. This is fully 
set forth in Rom. 2: 1-8. Then Paul (Col. 2: 16, R. V.) 
says: "Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, 
or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath 
day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the 
body is Christ's." These all pertained to the Jewish law — 
the shadow, or type, of the Christian that followed it. Paul 
was here commanding them not to go back to these types, 
which were a shadow of that which was to come. Do not 
go back to them so as to give ground for others to con- 
demn you for going back to Judaism. God plainly teaches 
that unless we show mercy to others, help those in need, 
forgive those who trespass against us, God will not forgive 
our sins and trespasses against him. Unless we are for- 
given, we cannot be saved. Into the new heavens and the 
new earth no unclean thing can enter, but only the clean — 
those purged from sin by the blood of Christ. When a 
man accepts God's mercy, he does it on the conditions God 
lays down ; he accepts it by walking in the way God has or- 
dained for his children to walk. To refuse to walk in that 
way is to refuse to accept God's mercy, for his mercy flows 
only in the channels he has marked out. Whoso refuses to 
walk in the channel in which his mercy flows refuses to ac- 
cept of his mercy. This means, too, we must become like 
God in our spirit if we dwell with him. 

KING JAMES TRANSLATORS, WERE THEY IMMER- 
SIONISTS? 

Brothei^ Lipscomb: Were the men who gave us the Authorized (or 
King James) translation of the Scriptures immersionists — all or any 
great number of them? 

In A.D. 1606 King James selected fifty-four scholars to 
make a new translation of the Bible under rules and restric- 



366 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tions prescribed by him — suggested, no doubt, by the high 
functionaries of the church in his day. Immersion was 
long preached in the English Church, and gave way so 
gradually to affusion that it is difficult to tell when the 
change took place. Public sentiment and popular practice 
always change before the laws and practices are changed. 

Dr. Wall says: "The offices or liturgies for public bap- 
tism in the Church of England did all along, so far as I can 
learn, enjoin dipping, without any mention of pouring or 
sprinkling/' 

The "Manual of Service," printed in 1530, the twenty- 
first year of Henry VIII., gives this direction for public 
baptism: "Then let the priest take the child, and, having 
asked the name, baptize him by dipping him in the water 
thrice." 

In 1549, the second year of King Edward VI., the order 
stands thus : "Shall dip it in the water thrice." Then it is 
added: "And if the child be weak, it shall suffice to pour 
water upon it." 

This is the first intimation of pouring or sprinkling we 
find, but it had been practiced before the law was changed. 
When the Authorized Version was made, the practice had 
become more general; but whether the translators held to 
the original practice, it is difficult to tell. The rules of the 
Church of England still require immersion. 

Bishop Coxe, of New York, who edited the "Ante-Nicene 
Fathers," noted for his learning, in a letter of April 16, 
1892, said : "In the Church of England dipping is even now 
the primary rule. But it is not the ordinary custom. It 
survived far down into Queen Elizabeth's time, but seems 
to have died out early in the seventeenth century. It never 
has became obsolete. I myself have baptized by dipping 
both adults and babes." 

Queen Elizabeth reigned from 1558 to 1603. So that 
immersion as the practice died out early in the seventeenth 
century. That is the time our version was made. King 
James succeeded Elizabeth. So the change in practice took 
place about the time the translation was made. I know 
of no means of learning the views of the men engaged in 
the work ; but the popular tendency was for affusion. 

Charles Wheatly, of London, a learned Episcopalian au- 
thor, in a treatise entitled "The Book of Common Prayer," 
says: "Nor is aspersion or sprinkling ordinarily used to 
this day in any country that was never subject to the pope ; 
and among those that submitted to his authority, England 
was the last place where it was received ; though it has 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 367 

never obtained so far as to be enjoined, dipping having 
always been prescribed by the rubric." (Page 349.) 

So immersion is still the law in the Church of England, 
although sprinkling is the practice. So it is difficult to tell 
what the translators believed. Sprinkling had become the 
practice about the time the translation was made. D. L. 

KING, IS CHRIST A, NOW? 

Is Christ a King? If so, when was he crowned? Can he be a 
King and a Prince at the same time? How can he be a King and an 
Advocate at the same time? 

If Christ is not a King now, I cannot see when he ever 
will be. Paul (1 Cor. 15: 24-28) says: "Then cometh the 
end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, 
even the Father ; when he shall have put down all rule and 
all authority and power. For he must reign, till he hath 
put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall 
be destroyed is death. . . . And when all things shall 
be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be 
subject unto him that put all things under him, that God 
may be all and in all." He reigns now, will reign till the 
last enemy is destroyed; then he (Christ) will be subject 
unto him (God) that put all things under him. He now 
possesses an authority that he will not possess when he, 
having conquered the last enemy, will become subject to 
God, "that God may be all and in all." Paul (1 Tim. 6 : 15) 
says: "Who [Christ] is the blessed and only Potentate, the 
King of kings, and Lord of lords." Christ clearly has as 
much authority as he will ever have. In the exercise of 
that authority it takes time to overcome his enemies. When 
they are overcome, he will surrender the kingdom he has 
rescued up to the Father and be subject to him. The word 
prince is often used in the sense of king. Webster defines 
it: "The one of highest rank, a sovereign, a monarch; the 
son of a king or emperor, or the issue of a royal family." 
Jesus Christ is the Son of the King or Emperor of the uni- 
verse. He is in the exercise of kingly powers and prerog- 
atives. He was given the kingly prerogative when all 
power in heaven and earth was given into his hand. If we 
will follow him, we will find his power sufficient to save us. 
No truth can be elicited by trying to draw a distinction be- 
tween him as Prince and King, and the effort to draw these 
unreal and speculative distinctions indicates a disposition 
to follow untaught and unprofitable questions. 



368 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

KINGDOM OF CHRIST, WHEN AND WHERE SET UP, 
AND ITS PRESENT EXISTENCE ON EARTH. 

[Outlines of a sermon delivered at Bakerville, Tenn., July 12, 1894.] 

In Dan. 2 we are told of a great image that King Nebu- 
chadnezzar saw at Babylon. Daniel interpreted the vision 
for him, and told him that this image represented four 
great kingdoms of earth ; that Nebuchadnezzar was king of 
of you is a devil ?" (John 6: 70.) God did not make him 
a devil ; but Christ likely chose him because he was already 
the first (the Babylonian), and that three other kingdoms 
would follow, understood to be the Medo-Persian, the Gre- 
cian, and the Roman kingdom, or empire. Daniel then 
said : "And in the days of these kings shall the God of 
heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: 
and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it 
shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and 
it shall stand forever." (Verse 44.) "In the days of these 
kings," puts it in the days of the Roman empire, the time of 
the Caesars ; for the Roman empire was in full power while 
Christ was on earth and till long after his death. Hence 
this passage locates the establishment of the kingdom of 
Christ during the Roman empire, as spoken of by Daniel 
above. 

Having shown that the kingdom was to be set up in the 
days of the Roman kings, we then proceed to locate the 
time more definitely, quoting from the first part of Isa. 2, 
as follows: "And it shall come to pass in the last days, that 
the mountain of the Lord's house shall be established in the 
top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills ; 
and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall 
go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of 
the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will 
teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths : for out 
of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord 
from Jerusalem." In this passage there are three items 
that will assist us in deciding the precise time in the days 
of the Roman kings when the kingdom of God should be 
established — first, the expression, "the last days ;" secondly, 
"all nations shall flow unto it;" and, thirdly, "and the word 
of the Lord from Jerusalem." We will examine the last- 
named item first. 

The word of the Lord that was to build the mountain of 
the Lord's house was to go forth from Jerusalem. What 
word of the Lord, then, did go forth from Jerusalem in the 
days of the Caesars? Preaching began during the time of 
these kings at different places and by different persons. 
"In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 369 

wilderness of Judea, and saying, Repent ye: for the king- 
dom of heaven is at hand." Here is a proclamation about 
the kingdom, saying it was then at hand, which means it 
was then near by — as expressed in another place, "nigh 
unto you." This proclamation shows the kingdom near, 
but this preaching did not begin in and go forth from Jeru- 
salem. It began in the wilderness of Judea, and hence not 
the preaching, not the word of the Lord, that was to go 
forth from Jerusalem. Therefore, John the Baptist did 
not set up the kingdom; for he was never in Jerusalem, 
never preached there at all, so far as the record shows. 
But all understand that the above passage from Isaiah re- 
fers to the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. Hence, 
John's preaching was not at the right place to be the word 
of the Lord that was to go forth from Jerusalem. When 
soon afterwards Christ began preaching the same tidings — 
that the kingdom of heaven is at hand — he began not in 
Jerusalem, but in Galilee, almost at the other end of the land 
of Canaan from Jerusalem. Hence the preaching of Christ 
during his personal ministry was not the word of the Lord 
that was to go forth from Jerusalem, which was to build 
the house of the Lord — the kingdom of Christ. Then 
Christ called his twelve apostles and sent them out to pro- 
claim the same kingdom of heaven at hand that John and 
Christ preached. But these did not begin in Jerusalem. 
They were called and sent out in Galilee, and did not begin 
at Jerusalem, nor did they ever preach at Jerusalem at all, 
so far as we know. And hence we have found no preach- 
ing that began at Jerusalem. Jesus afterwards appointed 
seventy and sent them out to preach ; but they did not begin 
in Jerusalem, nor are we informed that they ever preached 
in Jerusalem at all. These were the only persons that 
preached before the death of Christ, and none of them 
began in Jerusalem. Hence the kingdom was not set up 
yet. 

In the next place, all nations were to be embraced. None 
of the preaching thus far examined went to the Gentiles. 
John the Baptist did not go to the Gentiles. Christ said he 
was "not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Is- 
rael." When he sent out the twelve, Jesus forbade them 
to go among the Gentiles. So none of this preaching was 
the word of the Lord that was to go forth from Jerusa- 
lem, and hence the kingdom was not established yet. 

Next, there is not a word about the last days in all this 
preaching thus far examined. Hence the three items named 
above are all wanting as to all the preaching done from the 
beginning of John's ministry to the death of Christ. And, 



370 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

besides, right up to the death of Christ the kingdom is 
spoken of as yet future, as Joseph of Arimathea, when he 
buried Christ, was waiting for the kingdom of God.. Christ 
said but shortly before his death: "Verily I say unto you, 
That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not 
taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come 
with power." (Mark 9: 1.) Hence, while the kingdom 
was not set up at the death of Christ, there were people then 
living that would see it come with power before they should 
taste of death. 

Next we will see what occurred soon after the death of 
Christ. When Jesus had risen from the dead and was about 
to ascend to heaven, he locates the place as indicated by 
Isaiah. He said : "Thus it is written, and thus it behooved 
Christ to suffer, and to rise from the dead the third day: 
and that repentance and remission of sins should be 
preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Je- 
rusalem." (Luke 24: 46, 47.) Here is a command to do 
preaching that was to begin at Jerusalem. This is a rec- 
ord by Luke of the last and great commission of Christ to 
his apostles ; and that this commission referred to the same 
word of the Lord that Isaiah said should go forth from 
Jerusalem, there can be no doubt in the mind of any that 
will examine the word of the Lord. Jesus also went right 
on and told these apostles to tarry in Jerusalem till endued 
with power from on high. This locates the beginning of 
the preaching of the gospel of Christ, which was to estab- 
lish the church of God, the kingdom of Christ, on earth. 

This definitely locates the place. It also includes "all 
nations," as expressed by Isaiah. The record of this same 
commission by Matthew and Mark also brings in "all na- 
tions." In Matthew it reads : "Go ye therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them," etc. Mark puts it: "Go ye 
into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature," 
etc. These records of the divine commission settle the 
question as to "all nations" and Jerusalem as the place of 
beginning the proclamation of the gospel of Christ, by 
which the church of God, the kingdom of Christ, should be 
established. 

Next we go to the day of Pentecost, about a week after 
the commission was given, and there in Jerusalem we find 
them tarrying, as Jesus had appointed them. We also find 
that the Holy Spirit came upon the apostles that very day 
and endowed them with power from on high, as Jesus had 
appointed them; and on that very day, when Peter began 
preaching, he explained this miraculous outpouring of the 
Holy Spirit as a fulfillment of prophecy, saying: "And it 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 371 

shall come to pass in the last days, ... I will pour 
out of my Spirit upon all flesh," etc. This identifies the 
"last days" as mentioned by Isaiah. So this occasion fully 
meets and fills the three items expressed by Isaiah. It was 
the "last days," and the preaching to be done was to em- 
brace all nations, and they were actually in Jerusalem, 
whence the word of the Lord was to go forth and where 
Jesus charged them to begin ; and they did begin that very 
day, and did a kind of preaching that day that never was 
done by any one before that day since time began. Three 
thousand souls were that day added; and thus the church, 
or kingdom of God, was that very day fully established on 
earth. This same gospel that was preached that day in 
Jerusalem and afterwards extended to all nations is still 
preached and will still be preached till time is no more. 
The day of Pentecost, therefore, dates the full establish- 
ment of the kingdom of Christ, the church of God, on earth. 
We have also seen that the cry was made from the begin- 
ning of John's preaching till the death of Christ that "the 
kingdom of heaven is at hand ;" but after the day of Pen- 
tecost this cry was never uttered again to the end of the 
New Testament. The kingdom of heaven had now come. 
and there was no need it should be said to be at hand any 
more. 

Now, regarding the idea that the kingdom of Christ is not 
set up yet, would it not be strange that John, Christ, and 
the apostles should continue to say "the kingdom of heaven 
is at hand" right up to the death of Christ and then never 
be heard again, if it be true that the kingdom of Christ is 
not yet set up ? It has been now nearly two thousand years 
since the death of Christ, and may be more than as many 
more before the end comes, when Adventists say the king- 
dom will be established. These things are inexplicable if 
the kingdom of Christ be not yet set up. But, understand- 
ing that the kingdom was set up on the day of Pentecost, 
all is plain enough. And, then, in addition to this, there are 
numbers of passages after the day of Pentecost that speak 
of the kingdom of God as actually present. In Col. 1 : 13 
Paul says of God : "Who hath delivered us from the powers 
of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his 
dear Son." This passage shows beyond the possibility of 
a doubt that the kingdom of Christ was actually present in 
the days of Paul, and that he and the Colossians were then 
in it ; and no sort of argument can possibly change this em- 
phatic language. Again: "As ye know how we exhorted 
and comforted and charged every one of you, as a father 
doth his children, that ye would walk worthy of God, who 



372 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

hath called you unto his kingdom and glory." (1 Thess. 
2: 11, 12.) "Who hath called." This expresses something 
already done, and shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that 
the kingdom of God was then actually present, and that 
Paul and the Thessalonians were in it at the time he wrote 
this letter, which was about twenty years after the day of 
Pentecost. No sort of argument can do away with this 
plain and positive passage. And, besides, the word ren- 
dered unto is eis in Greek, which means literally into — 
"hath called you into his kingdom" If this does not teach 
that the kingdom was actually present, it teaches nothing 
at all. Then, again, in the last of Iieb. 12 we have this lan- 
guage: "Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot 
be moved, let us have grace, whereby we may serve God 
acceptably with reverence and godly fear." Receiving a 
kingdom. This passage also indicates plainly, and with- 
out any sort of doubt at all, that the kingdom of Christ was 
then actually present, and that the Hebrew Christians were 
in it. Thus we have the church, the kingdom of God, 
spoken of regularly after the day of Pentecost as actually 
present and people entering into it, while there is not one 
single time the intimation that the kingdom is yet at hand. 
We examined more passages in which the word kingdom 
is used than where the word church is used, because the 
Adventists admit that the church has been established, but 
deny that the kingdom has. We also quoted the following 
passage from Amos, which is one of the strongholds of the 
Adventists to prove that the kingdom has not yet been es- 
tablished on earth : "In that day will I raise up the taberna- 
cle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches there- 
of ; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the 
days of old: that they may possess the remnant of Edom, 
and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith 
the Lord that doeth this." (Amos 9 : 11, 12.) This pas- 
sage, without any doubt, refers to the church of God, the 
kingdom of God, on earth ; for when the counsel of the apos- 
tles and elders was asked regarding the matter of requiring 
the Gentiles to be circumcised, the apostle James quotes this 
very passage and shows that it was all fulfilled already when 
the Gentiles were called into the blessings of the gospel in 
common with the Jews. (Acts 15: 16, 17.) This forever 
settles the meaning of this prophecy, as it was at that time 
fulfilled, and cannot relate to some future kingdom. Other 
passages besides these were used in the discourse; but 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 373 

some of these, and more besides, will come up in my re- 
sponse to Cargile. So these may suffice now. This brief 
presentation of the matter the better enables the readers 
to understand Cargile's review of it and my reply to him. 

E. G. S. 
KINGDOM, WHEN THE, ESTABLISHED. 

Brother Seivell: Please explain Matt. 16: 28. The Savior said to 
his disciples: "There be some standing here, which shall not taste of 
death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." 

The passage is understood to have had reference to the 
full establishment of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the 
church of God, the church of Christ. It could not have 
referred to anything else ; for the establishment of the king- 
dom of Christ, the gospel dispensation, is the only thing 
that has ever occurred since the utterance of the language 
that possibly could fill the requirements of the language of 
the Savior ; and that was to take place in the future, not in 
the then past. When the language was uttered, Christ had 
not died, his blood had not been shed, and no plan of salva- 
tion had been provided by him. But on the day of Pente- 
cost all things were ready; the great sin offering had been 
made, the blood had been shed, Christ had ascended, had 
been placed at the right hand of God, had been made "both 
Lord and Christ." On that day the apostles were in read- 
iness to begin the gospel proclamation ; the Holy Spirit came 
upon them on that day, filled them, inspired them, giving 
utterance to the words they used in their preaching, which 
was the first preaching ever done in the name, by the au- 
thority, of Christ. About three thousand were added that 
day to the already prepared material. That grand occur- 
rence was afterwards called "the beginning" by the apostle 
Peter. It is a fact, also, that all these things occurred 
shortly enough after their utterance for most of those pres- 
ent when the language was uttered to have been living on 
that day and long afterwards. It is also true that the 
preaching done on that day continued to be done to the close 
of the New Testament, and will continue till time shall end. 
Christ also has from that day been "head over all things to 
the church," even "King of kings, and Lord of lords." 

KINGDOM OF GOD— SHALL WE PRAY FOR IT TO 
COME? 

Is it not right to pray the prayer the Lord taught his disciples to 
pray, when he told them not to use vain repetitions as the heathen? 
Some object to praying: "Thy kingdom come." As we profess to take 
the Bible for our guide and believe just what it teaches, if we take 
anything from it, our name is taken out of the Lamb's book of life. 



374 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

I think if I pray the Lord's prayer and leave that out, I will be tak- 
ing from the word of God. 

It is not taking from the word of God to have reference 
to time and place and person, and so rightly divide the word 
of God, applying each scripture to those for whom it was 
intended. Paul (Rom. 3: 19) says: "We know that what 
things soever the law saith, it saith to them that are under 
the law." This means that it would be wrong to take 
things spoken in the law and apply them to persons who 
were not under the law. To fail to discriminate as to the 
persons and character and to apply scripture indiscrimi- 
nately to all is to make nonsense and confusion of the 
Scriptures. To apply scripture given to one class of per- 
sons to those of a different class is to "change the truth of 
God into a lie." 

The one great consideration of Jesus and the apostles and 
disciples during his personal sojourn on earth was the es- 
tablishment and opening of his kingdom on earth. This 
occurred on Pentecost. It was then called "the great and 
notable day of the Lord." It was for this they were com- 
manded to pray. For us to take no note of our changed 
relation to this event and make the same prayer in the same 
sense would make nonsense of God's word and make fools 
of ourselves. To pray for God to give us something that 
can only be given once, and he has already given it, mocks 
God. 

Jesus taught his disciples to pray, "Thy kingdom come ;" 
and this prayer was answered on the day of Pentecost. It 
came, was organized, and opened to men there once for all. 
It is folly to pray for a repetition of this. Men pray, "Thy 
kingdom come;" but none of them pray for it to come in 
the sense these early disciples were taught to pray this. 
You may ask any man who prays this, and who has a 
thought as to what he prays for, and every one will explain 
he prays it in a different sense from what Christ taught his 
disciples to pray it. It is as much a taking from God's 
word to change the sense as to change the words. 

If we use it in a different sense, it is much better to use 
words that clearly convey that sense, and not confuse our 
own minds and the minds of others by using the words of 
the Savior in a sense not used by him. No man uses them 
now in the sense he used them. It is better in changing the 
sense to change the words ; and it is not taking from the 
word of God or changing his word for us who live after the 
establishment of the kingdom of Christ on earth to fail to 
pray for its establishment simply because he commanded 
those who lived before it came to pray that it might come 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 375 

We had as well pray for the coming of Messias himself be- 
cause those who lived before his coming prayed that he 
might come. Those who pray now, "Thy kingdom come/' 
mean that it may spread, that it may increase in its influ- 
ence, and in its spirit may prevail both in the world and in 
our own lives. But it is much better to say exactly what 
we mean than to change the meaning of words used by 
Christ. 

KINGDOM, THE, AND "FOOLISH AND DIVISIVE" DIS- 
CUSSION. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Does Dan. 2: 44 have reference to the 
same thing as does John in Rev. 1: 9, and also Paul in Col. 1: 13? 
(2) Has Jesus a kingdom now? Has he subjects now? Has he terri- 
tory now? We have brethren here who claim to be stanch, loyal dis- 
ciples, some who have reached their fourscore years, who contend 
that Christ will have no kingdom until his second coming; that the 
church is not the kingdom and has no relative value whatever with 
the word kingdom. 

(1) I think the kingdom of God in each of the places re- 
ferred to means the same thing — the kingdom that the 
God of heaven set up "in the days of those kings" (the Ro- 
man kings) . 

(2) Paul thought Jesus had a kingdom when he wrote 
this letter to the Colossians, and John thought he was in 
this kingdom when he wrote Rev. 1 : 9 : "I John, your 
brother and partaker with you in the tribulation and king- 
dom and patience which are in Jesus, was in the isle that is 
called Patmos." These passages indicate the presence of a 
kingdom on earth, and a number of others teach it as 
clearly. (Read Matt. 12: 28; 21: 31, 43; Mark 9: 1; 15: 
43 ; Luke 9 : 11 ; 11 : 20 ; 6 : 20 ; 7 : 28 ; 9 : 27 ; 12 : 32 ; 16 : 16 ; 
17 : 21 ; 1 Thess. 2 : 12 ; Heb. 12 : 28 ; Rev. 1 : 9.) All these 
passages and a number of others say the kingdom of God or 
Christ was in existence, had a territory, and subjects in 
that kingdom. To a man that reads these passages and 
doubts their teaching there is little use to argue. The ar- 
guing such questions is wrong. All discussion of these 
questions is foolish and divisive. Who ever heard of such 
discussions in apostolic times and among spiritual men? 
Where are such, questions as those raised found in the Bi- 
ble? A man that draws or tries to draw such questions 
into discussion is crazy or worse. A man believes Jesus 
will come with greater power in time to come than he has 
heretofore. Such a thought need not be sinful even if 
wrong. But to make a hobby of such questions to raise 
strife is evil on both sides. It is raising strife over noth- 
ing. They are questions over nothing. 



376 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

KINGDOM, THE, NOW EXISTS. 

Brother Sewell: I want you to explain Dan. 2: 44, 45. In conver- 
sation with a Baptist on the setting up of the kingdom, he says that 
the above scripture has not been fulfilled and will not be until the 
second coming of Christ, or in the beginning of the millennial age. I 
understand that all Christians are now in that kingdom, and that Je- 
sus is their King. 

According to the language in Daniel, the kingdom spoken 
of in the verses referred to is the kingdom of Christ on 
earth now. When he says, "In the days of these kings shall 
the God of heaven set up a kingdom," the "these kings" 
means the kings of the Roman empire, the Caesars ; and it 
is a matter of certain historical fact that Christ came, was 
crucified and rose, and ascended to heaven in the days of 
the Caesars; and when he sent down the Holy Spirit upon 
the apostles on the day of Pentecost, endowing them with 
the Spirit of God, the promised power from on high, they 
on that day for the first time on earth preached the gos- 
pel, the plan of salvation, through Jesus our Lord; and 
on that day three thousand were saved by a plan and in a 
way that no soul of earth ever was before. But after that 
day no soul was ever saved in any other way than the three 
thousand were; hence on that day the kingdom of Christ 
was set up, and has been in existence ever since. It is 
spoken of both as a church and as a kingdom in such a 
sense as to leave no doubt but that the words church and 
kingdom are both applied to the same institution, and indi- 
cate that it was in full existence at the time mentioned. 
See Heb. 12. In that chapter both these words are used 
as referring to the same institution and as existing at the 
time mentioned. The apostle speaks of having "come to 
the general assembly and church of the firstborn;" and 
then in the close of the same chapter, and referring to the 
same institution, he says : "Wherefore we receiving a king- 
dom which cannot be moved." Thus putting it in the pres- 
ent tense shows beyond controversy that the kingdom of 
Christ was in existence in the days of the apostles, and the 
same kingdom is in existence now and will be till the close 
of time. 

KINGDOM, WHAT MEANT BY? 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Matt. 13: 28-30. I under- 
stand the kingdom spoken of in this parable to have reference to the 
church of Christ. If so, in what way would the servants be likely to 
root out the wheat in separating themselves from the tares? (2) 
Also, harmonize verse 30 with 2 Thess. 3:6. (3) Do the "tares" rep- 
resent disorderly brethren in the church to-day? 

(1) Yes, it means the church of Christ; but the field is 
the world, the tares are the wicked people of the world. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 377 

The field, the world, is the territory in which the church 
and the wicked people of the world all live. To "root up" 
would be to destroy. Hence the church must not try to 
destroy, to exterminate, the wicked. If they were to un- 
dertake that, they would not always be able to distinguish 
between the righteous and the wicked, and would sometimes 
"root up" (destroy) the wheat (the righteous). On the 
other hand, the righteous should seek to convert and save 
the wicked rather than destroy them. Jesus said that he 
did "not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them;" 
and his people should try to do the same thing. The field 
is not the church, but the world, and that is why there 
would be danger of destroying some of the righteous if 
they were to undertake to destroy the wicked. The Lord 
will attend to their case at the end of the world. 

(2) If you will only take notice that the field is the 
world, not the church, you will readily see these verses are 
already in harmony. The church is commanded to with- 
draw from disorderly members, but it is not to try to de- 
stroy the wicked people of the world. 

(3) Most certainly not. There are often wicked people 
in the church, and these are to be withdrawn from. But 
the "tares" are not in the church, but in the world ; and all 
the finally wicked will be sent to their doom at the end of 
the world. The trouble all comes from considering the 
field the church instead of the world, as Jesus distinctly 
put it. 

KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE THIEF. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Matt. 27: 44 reads thus: "The 
thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his 
teeth." Mark 15: 32 reads: "And they that were crucified with him 
reviled him." Luke 23: 43 reads: "To-day shalt thou be with me in 
paradise." Ministers say that one of these thieves was saved. Is it 
true? 

It is very certain from Matthew and Mark that both 
thieves railed on him at first — tormented him over his 
claim to be the Son of God. But one of them afterwards 
repented, as shown by Luke, or else he was speaking iron- 
ically, and still railing on him, when he said: "Lord, re- 
member me when thou comest into thy kingdom." It is 
probable that when this thief saw the wonderful manifes- 
tations that occurred at Jerusalem during the crucifixion, 
he was thereby convinced that Jesus was the Son of God, 
and began to plead for mercy. 

But whether the thief was saved or not is a very differ- 
ent question. His petition was to be remembered by Jesus 
when he should come into his kingdom. But what did he 



378 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

mean by the expression, "thy kingdom ?" There is not 
a single thing to indicate that the thief had any proper con- 
ception of the spiritual kingdom that Christ was to estab- 
lish, either in this world or that which is to come. Even 
the apostles themselves who had been with Jesus during all 
his ministry and had heard all his teaching did not at that 
time understand this; and up to the very time that Jesus 
ascended to heaven the apostles still thought he had come 
to establish an earthly kingdom, as evinced by their ques- 
tion just before his ascension, which is: "Lord, wilt thou at 
this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" This 
plainly shows that the apostles, who had a hundred times 
better opportunity to understand the nature of the kingdom 
of Christ than the thief, did not understand it. There is 
no reason, therefore, to conclude that the thief had any- 
thing in his mind but an earthly, temporal kingdom. And in 
this case the thief simply thought that Christ would at once 
come down from the cross and establish his kingdom by 
miraculous power, and that he could also save him from 
death. This is, almost to a certainty, all that the thief 
meant ; while the answer of Jesus was to let him know that 
both of them would die that very day and go into the unseen 
world. We have no idea that anything more than this was 
meant. But even if we were to admit that the thief was 
really saved, that would bring no comfort to any one now, 
for it is certain from the teaching of the New Testament 
that no one is ever saved that way now. Paul, in Heb. 9 : 
17, says : "For a testament is of force after men are dead : 
otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liv- 
eth." The plan of salvation was not completed when the 
thief made his petition. The Savior was still living, and 
his last will had not yet taken effect, was not then in force. 
But he died that very day, and from that very day until 
now no sinner has been saved except by believing the gos- 
pel, repenting, and being baptized, so far as the word of 
God indicates. Therefore it is no use for the people to 
spend time trying to show that the thief was saved, for not 
a sinner on earth can be saved that way now. So men were 
once pardoned, saved, by offering sin offerings and burnt 
offerings and burnt incense, and such like; but who can be 
saved that way now? Not one. And we may just as well 
expect pardon through the offering of a lamb or kid as to 
expect to be saved as the thief was. No matter, therefore, 
how often men might prove that the thief was saved, it is 
at the same time true that no mortal of earth will be saved 
that way since the establishment of the kingdom of God by 
the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in the city of Jeru- 
salem, and the attempt is only a waste of time. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 379 

KINGDOM, THE KEYS OF THE, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain through the Gospel Advocate 
what you understand Christ meant by "the keys of the kingdom." 
(Matt. 16: 19.) Does the last clause of the same verse give the apos- 
tles right to make laws for the church, or what does it mean? Please 
give us some light on who should and who should not officiate at the 
Lord's Supper. 

The use of keys is to lock and unlock, to close and open 
the door. Peter was authorized to open the door of the 
kingdom to the world. He made known the terms on which 
men could enter and the terms that would bar their en- 
trance into the kingdom, or church, of God. "He that be- 
lieveth and is baptized" tells the conditions of entrance; 
"He that believeth not shall be damned" gives the condi- 
tion that bars an entrance; "Repent, and be baptized," 
gives the conditions of entrance. To refuse this is the bar 
to the entrance. If it was intended to ask why keys are in 
the plural, I do not believe it has any significance. Keys 
is more euphonious and more easily pronounced than key; 
so the plural form was used. The clause, "whatsoever thou 
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatso- 
ever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," 
only means to say the Spirit shall guide in this work of 
declaring the conditions of entrance, and they will all be 
sanctioned in heaven. There is no legislative power for 
the church of God, save God himself. The apostles were 
only the agents through whom God made known his laws. 
A church that has other laws or introduces anything not 
ordained by God into its service so far rejects God as the 
lawmaker and ceases to be a church of God. I have never 
found a word in the Scriptures about officiating at the 
Lord's table or any service of God. The Lord's table is for 
his disciples. They are to give thanks and give one to an- 
other. All formality in it is without divine warrant. One, 
of course, leads in giving thanks. This is not officiating, 
for any disciple can do this. It does not pertain to any of- 
fice. The elders, or those who preside, can call on any dis- 
ciple to do this. He only expresses aloud and leads in what 
every disciple does. That one who stands up and hands the 
bread and wine to the others any more officiates in the 
sense of official duties than he who partakes is a priestcraft 
that does not pertain to the new institution. Every one is 
a king and priest to offer his own sacrifice or offering to 
God. Each should break of the loaf for himself as each 
sips of the cup for himself. He who stands up and gives 
thanks is not a whit above him who receives and partakes 



380 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of it. I find not a thing taught concerning this except all 
as brethren and equals are to participate in the service. 
One has as much right as another, save the elders should 
direct and see all things are done decently and in order. 

KISS, THE HOLY. 

Brother Lipscomb: I have recently been thrown among the Dunk- 
ards, and have heard a good deal about the "holy kiss." Are the in- 
structions given by the apostles an injunction to kiss, or only to regu- 
late a custom which prevailed at that time? At what time, and where, 
did the Savior wash the disciples' feet? 

I think, beyond all doubt, the object of the Holy Spirit 
in referring to the kiss was to regulate a social custom, and 
not to institute an ordinance. It was customary to greet 
with a kiss, and the apostles wrote it should be a holy one, 
not a lascivious one. The ordinances were instituted and 
observed by Jesus and recorded in his life and teachings as 
part of his work. They were observed by the apostles in 
their practice as set forth in the Acts of the Apostles, and 
then emphasized in the Epistles. Note how baptism and 
the Lord's Supper were ordained by Jesus, practiced by the 
apostles and churches as set forth in the Acts of the Apos- 
tles, and then urged in the Epistles by specific directions for 
observing them. Jesus said nothing of it, never kissed or 
was kissed, save by Judas, so far as we are told. There is 
no account in Acts of any such custom by the apostles or 
churches, and it is only mentioned in the concluding saluta- 
tions of three or four Epistles. Institutions and practices 
ordained by God, to be observed by his people, are never 
treated in this way. It is mentioned only when the apostles 
were sending salutations to others, being thereby reminded 
of their method of salutation. If it was intended as an 
ordinance of God, I do not see why it was treated so differ- 
ently from his other ordinances and commands. 

Brother Sew ell: Please explain what is meant by the "holy kiss." 
(1 Thess. 5: 26.) I have understood that it was but one of the salu- 
tations, and that when it was used it should be "holy;" but this com- 
mands us to salute all the brethren with a holy kiss. Can we lay 
aside this plain command? If not, how can it be obeyed? 

It was customary among the patriarchs and Jews to kiss 
each other as a salutation and as an expression of friendship 
and confidence, as hand-shaking is in this country. Kiss- 
ing, it is said, is still the common salutation in the Oriental 
countries where the patriarchs and Jews lived. Kissing as 
a salutation has been quite common among lady acquaint- 
ances in this country ; but promiscuous kissing between men 
and women has never been common as a salutation, except 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 381 

among close family relations. Promiscuous kissing be- 
tween men and women might not be always holy. Hence 
the New Testament emphasizes to Christians that kiss each 
other that their kissing must be holy. The custom of salut- 
ing by a kiss did not originate with Christianity. It had 
long been customary among the Jews and other Orientals 
as a salutation, and was kept up among Christians when 
Christianity was established. So the Lord did not forbid 
it, did not demand that it should cease, but safeguarded it 
by putting the word holy before it. 

KISSING, THE ORGAN, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb: I see in the papers lately a great deal about 
the organ in "church worship;" and since we are to speak where the 
Bible speaks and be silent where the Bible is silent, and since the Bi- 
ble says so little concerning the organ, I think all that has been said 
amounts to very little. Some say that "we do wrong in doing any- 
thing the inspired apostles did not teach the brethren to do at that 
time." Now, any sane man knows it is just as wrong for us to leave 
undone anything taught by the apostles as to do anything not taught 
by them, and they exhorted the brethren to greet one another with 
holy kisses. If we were to practice such now, we would be called 
"Kissers" instead of "Campbellites." What do you say? Shall we 
let out to kissing every Lord's day or not? I, for one, say no; for it 
would cause a fuss, and a shameful report would get out on the 
church that would hinder the cause of Christ all over the land. But 
now back to the organ question. Let us carefully examine Ps. 87. 
The Psalmist here is speaking of, or rather pointing to, the coming 
of Christ and his kingdom. In verse 7 we read: "As well the singers 
as the players on instruments shall be there." An apostle tells us 
that all that was written was written for our admonition and our 
learning. 

The expression, "Speak where the Bible speaks and be 
silent where it is silent," is no scripture. It was a rule 
adopted by Thomas Campbell in seeking to return to the 
order of the New Testament, as used by him and Alexander 
Campbell. We will teach what the Bible teaches; we will 
teach nothing that is not taught in the Bible. It was a 
worthy axiom and a good rule. As perverted, to forbid in- 
vestigating what the Bible does not teach, it is an abomina- 
ble rule for perverting the word of God. 

Fidelity to the will of God requires the Christian to prove 
all things, test every teaching and practice by the word of 
God, accept and maintain what it requires, reject and op- 
pose what it does not approve. As applied to prevent the 
discussion of things not required in the Bible, but sought to 
be introduced in the service, every practice of evil can be 
brought in. Under that interpretation of the rule, card 
playing can be introduced into the worship of God, and it is 
wrong to oppose it. 



382 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

I hardly know what to think of a man's state who says 
we are not to speak of a thing used constantly in the church 
service because it is not spoken of in the Bible. 

If it is not right to be spoken of, a thousand times more 
it is not right to be used. "Let it not be once named among 
you, as becometh saints." 

Things not to be spoken of are such as do not become 
saints. Things that become saints should be talked of and 
approved. They ought to be encouraged and cherished and 
practiced. "Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things 
are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things 
are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things 
are of good report ; if there be any virtue, and if there be 
any praise, think on these things." Think on them, talk 
of them, and commend them. 

There never was a more absurd position than that things 
could be practiced in the church and not talked of, tested, 
weighed. "Prove all things ; hold fast that which is good." 
Polygamy, sprinkling, the mourners' bench, and every other 
unscriptural practice could be introduced and maintained, 
and all discussion objected to on the same ground. 

But our brother shows the spirit of these innovations in 
saying kissing is commanded ; but he is opposed to doing it. 
because it would be ridiculed. To refuse to do what God 
commands for fear of ridicule or persecution is to refuse to 
confess him before men — is to deny him ; and such Jesus 
will deny before his Father and the holy angels. When we 
refuse to do what God commands because people will ridi- 
cule us, we are not worthy to be in the church of God. 
When we practice things not commanded because they are 
popular, we are ruled by the same spirit. 

There are churches that require their members to kiss ; 
and while they are not numerous, the world respects them 
for fidelity to what they regard God requires at their hands. 
The Dunkards (or German Baptists) and Mennonites do it. 
If I believed the Bible required it, I would insist on doing 
it every Lord's day, let the world deride or pity as it may. 
I do not believe the Bible ever commanded it to any one. 
It was customary in some countries to greet one another 
with a kiss. The Bible did not seek to change the custom, 
but said : "Let the kiss be a holy one, not a lascivious kiss." 

I do not know whether Ps. 87 has reference to the estab- 
lishment of the kingdom of Christ or not. I do not know 
what it means. I find all the commentators who have stud- 
ied it say it is difficult to understand. Dr. Clarke says: 
"Those who. are for mystic meanings think that it refers to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 383 

the church. To pretend to have found out the true mean- 
ing would be absurd." 

If our brother can give an explanation, he will confer a 
lasting benefit on the religious world. We know that no 
one played instruments at the establishment of the king- 
dom. Then if our brother will read the revised scripture, 
he will see there is no players on instruments in the Psalm. 
Neither is there in the Septuagint. Dr. Clarke gives the 
translation of Symmachus and Aquila: "And they shall 
sing as in leading up to a dance. All my fountains are 
there." He says the translator cannot be far wrong. 

There is just as much authority for the dance as the or- 
gan in the Bible. 

KNOWING MAN WOULD SIN, YET GOD MADE HIM— 
DID NOT THIS MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR MAN 
TO AVOID SIN? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give me some light 
on 1 Pet. 1: 20? It reads: "Who verily was foreordained before the 
foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for 
you." Also please explain Rev. 13: 8, which reads: "Lamb slain 
from the foundation of the world." I have had several controversies 
on this subject. Some say that God knew man would sin and had 
Christ slain for him before he created him, and, as a necessary con- 
sequence of that knowledge, he must sin. Others have gone so far 
as to say that God is the author of sin, and quoted the passages re- 
ferred to in proof of their position. Now, brethren, my design in 
writing is to find out how man could avoid sin if God knew that he 
would sin. 

Nine-tenths of all the controversies and difficulties that 
arise among men arise not half so much from what the 
word of God says as from what men say about it in giving 
their vieivs of what they think the Bible teaches. Men say 
that God knew before he created man that he would sin. 
The Bible says no such thing. All this trouble, therefore, 
arises over the imaginations and speculations of men, not 
from what the Bible says. The Bible nowhere says that 
God knew that man would sin before he created him, and 
we see no room for trouble on that subject. Untaught 
questions are the ones generally that give us trouble. When 
Peter declares that Christ was foreordained before the 
foundation of the world, even granting that the word world 
here means the physical earth, which is by no means cer- 
tain, we can very easily believe what is said without fram- 
ing another intricate proposition not found in the oracles of 
God. We need not trouble ourselves over what God does 
not say, for beyond what he says on this subject man 
knows nothing. The idea that God is the author of sin 
arises from this other proposition — that God knew that he 



384 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

would sin. And thus one assumption or speculation gives 
rise to another; and when we once step beyond the plain 
expressions of God's word, there is no limit and no chance 
at all to settle questions of that character. We know noth- 
ing of what God knew, or what he did not know, except 
what he tells us about it in his word. The argument that 
God knew before he created man that he would sin is gen- 
erally founded upon the claim that God foreknew all things, 
and consequently must have known that man would sin. 
But this again is a human proposition. The Bible nowhere 
says that God foreknew all things, nor does it anywhere 
say that "God foreordains whatsoever comes to pass." 
The Bible plainly speaks of God foreordaining some things ; 
and whenever we read, as in the above passage in Peter, 
that a certain thing was foreordained, let us just believe 
that as a fact and stop there, and by this means all trou- 
ble will be avoided, and in no other way. The whole trou- 
ble in the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees arises from prop- 
ositions of their own framing, and not from what the word 
of God says. 

The Bible says : "God hath made man upright ; but they 
have sought out many inventions." Men have sought out 
inventions (sins) ; God did not force them out by decrees. 
"All have sinned, and come short of the glory of God." 
This passage plainly expresses that sin is something that 
man does, not something that God does. 

As to the passage in Revelation, that the Lamb was slain 
from the foundation of the world, the book of Revelation is 
highly figurative, and its figures must be explained as far 
as possible by plain passages. From the time that God 
determined to send his Son into the world he evidently de- 
termined that he should be slain. But, in reality, he was 
not slain till he came, and was, in fact, slain (crucified) 
for us. From the time that man sinned, lambs — literal 
lambs — were slain ; and the blood of these lambs pointed 
to the blood of Christ, was typical of the blood of Christ, 
as is plainly taught in Hebrews; and the very fact that 
Christ is called a "Lamb" in the New Testament shows the 
intimate connection between the lambs of Jewish altars 
and the Son of God. Hence, Christ was slain, both in the 
purpose of God and through the figure of lambs, from the 
foundation of the world, but literally and in fact eighteen 
hundred years and more ago, when Jesus suffered literally 
upon the cross, and thus made an end of sin offering 
through the offering of Jesus once for all. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 385 

KNOWING THE LORD IN THE NEW COVENANT. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: For the benefit of our Bible class, 
give us through the Gospel Advocate an explanation on Heb. 8: 11. 

The verse is : "They shall not teach every man his neigh- 
bor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: 
for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest." 
This is a quotation from Jer. 31, in which he is telling 
them that a new covenant will be established unlike the 
first. The first, or Mosaic, covenant was based on fleshly 
birth. Persons came into that covenant wholly ignorant 
of God and his law. There was a necessity of teaching God 
and his law after they became members of this covenant. 
It is not so in his new covenant. None could enter that 
until they knew the Lord, until that law in its leading char- 
acter was written on the heart of the individual. The 
knowledge of the Lord and the law of submission to God 
written on the heart are necessary to membership in the 
church of God, or the new covenant. It was not in the old. 
The specific requirements and applications of the law in 
the varied relationships of life must still be learned. But 
the authority of God expressed in the law of submission to 
him must be written upon the heart of every one who would 
come to Christ. D. L. 

KNOWING IN PART AND PROPHESYING IN PART. 

For the benefit of our Bible class, we wish your views on 1 Cor. 
13: 9, 10, which is: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part 
shall be done away." Some say it has reference to this life and the 
one to come; others say it has reference to oral teaching and proph- 
ecy in the days of the apostles and the completion of the written word 
or New Testament Scriptures. 

The world is not agreed as to what the passage refers to, 
but perhaps the majority of Bible students understand that 
it refers to the full development of the word of truth. The 
Bible was all given in parts, a little at a time, as was 
needed to give the will of God at the time. The New Tes- 
tament was given in the same way. No one of the apostles 
understood the whole plan of salvation in all its parts at 
once, we presume, and were not inspired in that way. But 
the Holy Spirit only presented through them such things 
as were needed at the time they were spoken or written. 
When Peter preached on the day of Pentecost, he did not 
have a full comprehension of all that pertained both to be- 
coming a Christian and living the Christian life; but the 
Spirit spoke through him just what was needed on that 
occasion, and he only understood what he spoke, just as 
others had a choice to understand what was spoken by him, 



386 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

or rather through him by the Spirit. And when the time 
came for him to teach Christians how to live, the Spirit 
through him taught that also, just as needed. None of the 
apostles knew all at once; and when the time came for 
them to write the things pertaining to the practical work 
of the church and all things else composing the New Tes- 
tament, the same was true. The Spirit gave to each one 
what he should write at the time, and he wrote accordingly ; 
and in this way, little by little and by different men, the 
whole was completed. No one, therefore, could have a full 
and comprehensive view of the whole until all had been 
given ; and, more than likely, this is what the apostle refers 
to in the above passage. 

Any one that will study the New Testament carefully 
may soon have a more extensive knowledge of the plan of 
salvation in a short while than any apostle had at one time 
until the whole had been given. Hence they knew in part, 
a little at a time, and prophesied in part, a little at a time, 
until all the prophecies were completed. No one knew how 
to give or write down all these matters at once; but when 
by littles all had been written, then the power of prophecy 
ceased, and all direct inspiration, all power of knowing or 
teaching without learning, ceased. Those, therefore, that 
come after the apostles and will carefully read and study 
what they have written have the advantage of them in these 
things. They have them all before them at once in the 
New Testament, while the apostles and all others in their 
time received it in parts and parcels ; and we are inclined to 
believe this is what the passage means. Yet this is one of 
the passages about which men will perhaps always differ, 
and we do not know that the other view would contradict 
any other passage. E. G. S. 

"LAST DAYS," THE, AND OTHER THINGS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: What period of time did Joel re- 
fer to in the expression "the last days?" Was there any law of par- 
don from the death of the Savior till Pentecost? What should be 
done with an elder who offends a brother and refuses to make amends? 

We understand "the last days" as spoken of in Acts 2, 
as from Joel, to refer to the Christian institution as the 
last of God's divine arrangements for the recovery of man. 
God first governed men by what are usually called "patri- 
archal laws ;" then by the law of Moses ; and, lastly, by the 
gospel of Christ. The gospel, the kingdom of Christ, is 
God's final arrangement for man's salvation. "The last 
days" began at the establishment of the kingdom of Christ. 
"The last days" as spoken of in that passage are now at 
hand, and will be till the close of time. As to the law of 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 387 

pardon, between the death of Christ and the day of Pen- 
tecost we have nothing revealed ; but we are satisfied that 
those who were faithful to obey God, either according to 
the law of Moses or the teaching of John and of Christ in 
his personal ministry, were taken care of by the Lord. 
And, in the third place, when an elder commits an offense, 
the matter should be looked into by the congregation ; and 
if the guilt of the elder is fully established by two or more 
witnesses, and he remains stubborn and will not yield to 
the will of the Lord, deal with him as you would with any 
other offending brother, promptly, but tenderly, regard- 
ing his age, position, and work. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain through the Gospel 
Advocate this passage of scripture: "It shall come to pass in the last 
days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." (Acts 
2: 17.) Does "the last days" here spoken of have reference to the 
last days of the Christian dispensation or the Jewish dispensation? 

We do not understand the expression "the last days" to 
apply especially to the last days of the Jewish economy as 
such nor of the Christian dispensation as such. It more 
likely refers to the Christian institution in comparison with 
other covenants — the patriarchal and the Jewish. The pa- 
triarchal was first, and lasted about twenty-five hundred 
years; the Jewish came next, and lasted near fifteen hun- 
dred years ; the Christian came in next, and is the last one 
that will ever be established on this earth. This one will 
last until the close of time. Hence "the last days" began 
on the day of Pentecost, and we are in "the last days" now, 
as "the last days" will continue while time lasts. The pas- 
sage expresses that the time had come when the last insti- 
tution from God to man was to be fully set up, which in- 
stitution will not end till time ends. The Jewish economy 
ended when Christ died, fifty days before Peter used the 
expression; and, therefore, Peter could not have referred 
to that, as its last days had already passed. Nor could he 
have referred to the last days of the Christian dispensation, 
for nearly two thousand years have already elapsed since 
Peter used the expression and the end is not yet. Hence 
it must refer, as we think, to the new order of things, which 
began then and will go on till time ends. 

LAW, CHRIST'S, THE OLD, ETC. 

Brother Sewell: At what point in Christ's life was the old law 
done away? At what point in his life did his law (or the new law) 
come into force? Was there ever a time when the people of earth 
had no law? If so, when? Could Christ's law, any part of it, be in 
force before it was fully completed? When was it fully completed? 



388 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The old law — the law of Moses — was done away at the 
death of Christ, not at any period of his public teaching. 
"Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was 
against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross. " (Col. 2: 14.) This shows 
precisely at what time the old law came to an end. 

The new law — the new covenant, the gospel of Christ — 
went fully into effect on the day of Pentecost, when the 
apostles were baptized in the Holy Spirit and "spake as 
the Spirit gave them utterance.' , They for the first time 
preached the gospel in fact, by which preaching about three 
thousand souls were saved — saved as no human being was 
ever saved before — by preaching such as was never pro- 
claimed till that day, but was all the time and everywhere 
preached to the end of the New Testament, and which is to 
be preached to the end of time. We learn what this preach- 
ing was, and when men were first saved by it, from Acts 2. 

There is no record of any preaching of any law, new or 
old, from the death of Christ to the day of Pentecost. 
Faithful Jews, no doubt, kept on obeying the law of Moses 
as best they could during the fifty days that elapsed between 
the death of Christ and the day of Pentecost, as they did 
not then know that their law was dead ; and if it did them 
no good, we think it did them no harm, as they thought that 
it was still in force. Also, those who had received the 
preaching of John, on through the same preaching by Christ 
and the apostles, and remained firm in that reformatory 
state till Pentecost, were doubtless safe, as there is no in- 
timation that that order of things, which was the prepar- 
atory state of the kingdom, lost any of its power till the fully 
established state of the kingdom on the day of Pentecost. 
Besides, as a matter of fact, the Lord has the destiny of 
those people in his hands, and he is certain to do right with 
them; and we can do nothing for them, anyway, and we 
need not trouble ourselves about them nor speculate about 
their condition. The Lord will be sure to save every one 
of them that ought to be saved, and we can neither help nor 
hinder him in that work. 

There was no part of the gospel plan of salvation, as 
such, in force till the day of Pentecost. But how much 
force or power the moral teaching of Christ may have had 
over the hearts and lives of those who heard it, we do not 
pretend to say now ; yet we are inclined to think it was in- 
fluencing men for good all the time. But, of course, the 
precepts of the gospel had no effect till promulgated as we 
read it in Acts 2 ; and it is equally certain that since that 
day no other sort of preaching was ever done by divine au- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 389 

thority to save any one. But all who will become Chris- 
tians as the three thousand did, and then continue to live 
the Christian life as taught by the apostles until death, will 
be eternally saved. 

LAW, PAUL KEEPING THE. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Acts 21: 20-27, especially verse 23. 
Why was it that the four men took a vow on them, and what kind of 
vow was it? Why was it that Paul was to purify himself and be at 
charges and shave their heads, and what kind of charges had he ref- 
erence to? What kind of purification does he refer to in verse 26, 
and why was it that he (Paul) purified himself with them? It seems 
that after Paul had requested the Jews to forsake Moses' sayings, he 
(Paul) vowed with the same people again to do the same thing he 
before commanded them not to do. 

The vow that these four Jews had taken upon themselves, 
we doubt not, was the Nazarite vow, an account of which 
you will find in Num. 4, in which, for some purpose, they 
had vowed to entirely separate themselves to the Lord for 
some specified time, for some specified end. And at the 
end of the days of separation, offerings of some expense 
had to be made by those who had made the vow; and at the 
time of the offering of the sacrifices which were required 
on such occasions the persons making the vow had to shear 
their heads and burn their hair in connection with their 
offerings, and they were not allowed to trim their hair dur- 
ing the days of their separation by their vows. At the 
end of this time they were to trim and burn their hair, and 
this was evidently the custom referred to in the above pas- 
sage. These four men who had made a vow had in some 
way violated it, and were unclean, and had to be purified ; 
and Paul entered into the purification with them and was 
to pay the charges or expenses of the affair. 

Now, as to why Paul did this, is perhaps more difficult to 
explain; but to us the probability is that Paul did not un- 
derstand at this time as thoroughly as he afterwards un- 
derstood that all those Jewish customs connected with the 
law were entirely done away in Christ ; or if they had been 
fully revealed to him, this was simply a case of human 
weakness, like that of Peter, when he, after fully under- 
standing that the law was broken down and the Gentiles 
called in, was so weak that he on one occasion withdrew 
from the Gentiles when certain Jews were present and 
caused Barnabas to dissemble; and Paul withstood him to 
the face, for he said he was to be blamed. Very certain it 
is that when Paul and Peter did these things they were 
not acting under inspiration at the time they did them. 
Those inspired men did not at any one time receive the full 



390 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

development of the gospel scheme nor fully understand at 
any one time all its relationships to the Jewish economy. 
Whenever the time came for any particular thing to be 
taught, they were fully inspired on that subject till it was 
fully made known, and then were left to act in reference 
to these things, like all others, upon their own responsibil- 
ity. And, therefore, if we find these apostles at any time 
acting contrary to their own teaching, we are not to con- 
sider that a contradiction of the revelations of God, but 
only that the apostles, when left to their own individual re- 
sponsibility, sometimes failed to live up to the things they 
taught when acting under the inspiration of the Spirit of 
God. Peter was not acting under inspiration when he de- 
nied his Lord, although before this he was empowered to 
raise the dead or cast out devils ; but he was simply acting 
under his own weakness as a man. Even if we regard 
that a full revelation in regard to the complete doing away 
of the Jewish law had been made to Paul, we are only to 
consider that in this case he was acting upon his own re- 
sponsibility and doing as his Jewish brethren at Jerusalem 
requested him. It was almost impossible to convince the 
first Jewish Christians that they were to entirely lay aside 
the customs of the law. This same apostle Paul labored 
extensively in his epistles to convince them that the law 
was done away and that they must let it alone. The Jews 
had strong prejudices in favor of the law, and, in spite of 
all the revelations that were made, they for a long time kept 
up many ceremonies of the law. The action of Paul was 
not an act of the Spirit of God in contradiction to itself, but 
simply a specimen of Jewish prejudice and weakness. 

E. G. S. 

LAW THE ALIEN IS UNDER, WHAT? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please answer through the Gospel 
Advocate what law the alien is under, or what kingdom does he (the 
alien sinner) flee from when he comes into the kingdom of Christ? 

The alien is under the law of sin and death which reigns 
in our members. (Rom. 7: 23.) The devil is the author 
of that law. While under his law we are in his kingdom. 
We ought to flee from his kingdom when we enter the king- 
dom of God. But many think now we can serve both kings ; 
so they do not leave it on entering God's kingdom. 

LAW, WAS THERE FORGIVENESS UNDER THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Lev. 6 we have an account of a 
man who, if he sin by telling a falsehood, can, by complying with the 
conditions therein set forth, be forgiven. Now, I have always under- 
stood from the reading of Paul to the Hebrews that under the law 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 391 

there was no forgiveness of sins. Am I correct? Paul to the Gala- 
tians says: "The law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them 
shall live in them." Were the people under the law required to be- 
lieve anything, or were they commanded to do the things of the law, 
regardless of faith of any kind? If the law required faith, it must 
to that extent have been of faith. 

When God said to the Jews upon their making the sin 
offerings as he commanded, "And it shall be forgiven him," 
we believe he meant just what he said. We believe he did 
forgive them. But that he forgave the sins through the 
blood of animals as looking forward to the blood of Christ 
is most likely. God could certainly forgive sin through 
blood, looking forward to the blood of Christ, as well as in 
any other way; and whatever may be true regarding the 
blood of those animals deriving its virtue from the blood 
of Christ that was to be shed, the pardon was real, so far 
as the men were concerned that made the offerings. But 
the character of those offerings was such that one offering 
could atone for the sin for which it was made, but could 
avail nothing for any sin that might be committed after- 
wards. Hence a new offering had to be made for every 
recurring sin. The offering of Christ was a complete and 
final sin offering, sufficient for the sins of the whole world, 
and no further offering has to be made. Those offerings 
under the law could not permanently take away sins, but the 
blood of Christ can. One offering is enough. But this 
does not hinder the pardon of those persons who offered 
sacrifices according to the law. It is also evident that those 
Jews were required to believe the truth of God's word, 
which declared to them that they should be pardoned when 
they made the offerings prescribed. If they did not have 
that faith, the promise of pardon brought no comfort to 
them. Yet the faith they had in a law of works was very 
different from the faith of the gospel of Christ. Paul was 
teaching the Hebrew Christians that the law of Moses was 
only the shadow of good things to come, while Christianity 
is the reality; that the law was disannulled on account of its 
weakness and imperfection ; and that they must turn from 
the law and adhere to the gospel, which is emphatically an 
institution of faith. E. G. S. 

LAW, NO— NO TRANSGRESSION. 

Please explain the following scriptures: "Where no law is, there is 
no transgression." (Rom. 4: 15.) "Sin is the transgression of the 
law." (1 John 3: 4.) "As many as have sinned without law shall 
also perish without law." (Rom. 2: 12.) Now, how can a man sin 
without law when sin is the transgression of law? Again, John 
(Rev. 20: 12) says: "I saw the dead, small and great, stand before 
God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which 



392 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things 
which were written in the books, according to their works." Now, 
Christ said: "The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him 
in the last day." (John 12: 48.) Taking these scriptures together, 
by what law will the heathen be judged or condemned? 

First, then, a man can transgress a law without know- 
ing that law. "And if a soul sin, and commit any of these 
things which are forbidden to be done by the command- 
ments of the Lord ; though he wist [knew] it not, yet is he 
guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. And he shall bring a 
ram without blemish out of the flock, with thy estimation, 
for a trespass offering, unto the priest : and the priest shall 
make an atonement for him concerning his ignorance 
wherein he erred and wist [knew] it not, and it shall be 
forgiven him. It is a trespass offering: he hath certainly 
trespassed against the Lord." (Lev. 5: 17-19.) "That 
servant, which knew his Lord's will, and prepared not him- 
self, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with 
many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit 
things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes." 
(Luke 12: 47, 48.) Here is the clear enunciation of the 
truth in both the Old and New Testaments that the law of 
God may be broken by those ignorant of it. When that 
law is broken, penalties flow from the breaking of the law, 
whether he who breaks it is aware of it or not. Many ex- 
amples of this are found in both the Old and New Testa- 
ments. The whole Jewish nation in the days of Ezra pre- 
sent an example of this. So does Paul, who sinned igno- 
rantly in unbelief. These, to my mind, clearly indicate that 
God does not make mere arbitrary enactments and tests 
for man (there are tests) ; but the commands of God are 
fixed and unchangeable principles growing out of God's 
own being. He has in the Scriptures declared these laws 
that man might be warned not to violate them ; but the 
violation of them brings the penalties as much as violation 
of the material laws brings the penalty, regardless of 
whether we are cognizant of those laws or not. The fire 
burns the ignorant and innocent child as well as the man 
having knowledge that fire burns. To sin knowingly is to 
violate two laws — commit two sins. One of them, pre- 
sumptuous in its character, involves a deeper ruin. 

Then God's law will govern in the moral and spiritual 
world, whether we know the law or not. To violate that 
law will bring the penalty, whether we know it or not. To 
be "without law" was simply to be without the knowledge 
of the law. "Where there is no law" means there is no sin 
where God has no law. But we sin or transgress the law 
without knowing the law. Hence those without the law 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 393 

sin in ignorance of the law — live in violation of it without 
knowing it. Those who do this sin without law — without 
knowing the law. These shall be condemned "without 
law" — without knowing the law; and those who, without 
knowing the law, do by nature the things contained in the 
law, become a law unto themselves and are saved by 
doing the things contained in the law. Note well that all 
who, ignorant of the law, sin against the law, perish. Only 
those who, not having the law, yet do the things contained 
in the law, become a law unto themselves, and so are saved 
by doing the law. No passage of scripture was ever more 
perverted than this one. It teaches that even the heathen, 
not having the law, must yet do the things contained in the 
law in order to be saved. 

The law clearly is the revealed law of God ; indeed, he 
has no other for judging and saving man. But some may 
think this unjust. Who art thou, man, that judgest 
God? Then the parable of the potter and the clay ap- 
plies. But in the first chapter of Romans, Paul clearly ex- 
plains why the heathen were without law — "because that, 
when they knew God, they glorified him not as God/' They 
"changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image 
made like to corruptible man, and to birds," etc. "Changed 
the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the 
creature more than the Creator." "As they did not like to 
retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a 
reprobate mind," etc. Clearly the heathen were ignorant 
of God because they did not desire to know and worship 
him. It is clear, too, that as God is no respecter of per- 
sons and he sent his word to some of the heathen who were 
willing to serve him, he sent and now sends it to all who 
are willing to receive and honor him. 

I cannot believe that God gave his Son to die to save man 
and ever let a single soul die and be lost for lack of a knowl- 
edge of that gospel. But it saves no responsible person who 
is ignorant of it. God does not cast his pearls before 
swine. Then the fact that God has not sent his gospel to a 
people is evidence clear to me that no one of that people 
would receive it if presented. There is no doubt but that 
the Scriptures, both Old and New, regard all those who 
sit in darkness as lost, and God has but one law by which 
all will be judged. That law Moses nor Christ made or 
enacted; they only made it known, that through it man 
might be saved. D. L. 



394 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

LAW, WHAT ARE "WORKS" OF? 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you please give us a clear, scriptural com- 
ment on Rom. 4: 2-6? 

There is no difficulty in understanding these verses if it 
is kept in mind that the works here referred to are the 
works of the Jewish law. All through this letter there is a 
contrast between the Jewish law and the faith of Jesus 
Christ, between the circumcision and the uncircumcision, 
between the Jew and the Gentile. In verse 19 of the pre- 
ceding chapter he says, "Now we know that what things 
soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the 
law," referring to the Jewish law, which had then been 
taken out of the way. Verse 20 : "By the deeds of the law 
[the Jewish law] there shall no flesh be justified." "It is 
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take 
away sins." (Heb. 10: 4.) This blood sealed that law. 
So there was a remembrance of sin every year until Jesus 
came and took it away by the sacrifice of himself once and 
forever. "Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By 
what law ? of works ? Nay : but by the law of faith. There- 
fore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without 
the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews only? is 
he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." 
(Rom. 3: 27-29.) He contrasts here the deeds of the law 
and the hearing of faith, the law of works and the law of 
faith, the Jews and the Gentiles corresponding to these two 
laws. He asks: "Do we then make void the law through 
faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Verse 
31.) The Jewish law was not made void by the faith that 
Christ brought, for the object of the law was to bring them 
to Christ, that they might be justified by faith. The con- 
trast was between justification under the law of Moses and 
justification by the faith of Christ. He then, in chapter 4, 
shows Abraham was not justified by the works of the law. 
The law, with its works, was not given in the days of Abra- 
ham. Abraham was justified by faith, and not by the 
works of the Jewish law. He believed God, and it was im- 
puted to him for righteousness. But when was faith im- 
puted to him for righteousness? James (2: 21-23) says: 
"Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he 
had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Seest thou how 
faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith 
made perfect? And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, 
Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for 
righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God." 
James explains when Abraham's faith was imputed to him 
for righteousness. It was when that faith "was made per- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 395 

feet by works." What "works" made the faith perfect? 
The works of the Jewish law? No ; but the works required 
by the law of faith. The law of faith had to be obeyed as 
well as the law of works, and the works to which faith led 
made the faith perfect. God commanded Abraham to sac- 
rifice his son. To do this was to be led by faith, was to 
obey the law of faith, the law addressed to his faith, and 
was to make the faith perfect by doing things required by 
the law of faith. The law of Moses was not addressed to 
the faith of people. The law of Christ is addressed to faith. 
To do the things required by Christ is to walk by faith ; to 
do the works of faith is to make faith perfect by works of 
faith. By this a man is justified, and not by the works of 
the Jewish law. "Now to him that worketh [the works of 
the Jewish law] is the reward not reckoned of grace, but 
of debt. But to him that worketh not [the works of the 
Jewish law], but believeth on him [Jesus] that justifieth 
the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness," be- 
cause he obeys the law that justifies by faith, not the law of 
works. David presents the same truth. The law of works 
could not justify, but the law of faith could; but faith 
never justified or was imputed for righteousness until it 
had been made perfect by works required by the law of 
faith. There is not an example in the Bible of God's bless- 
ing in response to faith before that faith proved itself by 
an overt act, a bodily act of some kind. Where God had 
given a law to guide and test the faith, as in the case of 
Abraham and in the law of faith given by Christ, that 
faith must prove itself by obedience to the law of faith be- 
fore it could be accepted of God. So read the connection, 
and see the contrast is between the works of the law of 
Moses and the requirements of the law of faith, and there 
is no difficulty in understanding these and all similar pas- 
sages. 

LAW, APPEALING TO THE CIVIL. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it right, under any circumstances, to appeal 
to the civil law for protection? A case in point: A man who is 
thought to be dangerous and vengeful, after having threatened the 
life of a man and his wife, goes to their house and raises a row. 
Has a brother the right to prosecute him for so doing? There is a 
fearful crime behind the man who did this. 

I think it right at times for a Christian to appeal to civil 
law for protection. Paul gave us an example of this when 
he appealed to Caesar to protect him from the Jews who 
were using the law and the offices of the law to punish him. 
(Acts 25: 1-11; also Acts 22: 25.) As they bound him 
with thongs, Paul asked the centurion that stood by : "Is it 



396 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lawful for you to scourge a man that is a Roman, and un- 
condemned ?" He appealed to his rights as a Roman citi- 
zen on this occasion to save himself from punishment. At 
Philippi he said: "They have beaten us openly, uncon- 
demnned, being Romans, and have cast us into prison." He 
made them come and bring them out, but he did not prose- 
cute them. To prosecute them, if I understand the mean- 
ing, is not to protect yourself from injury, but to take 
vengeance for wrong done. To bind him over to keep the 
peace, or to have him so confined as to prevent injury, 
might be to protect yourself against him ; but to prosecute 
and punish him is to take vengeance on him for injury. 
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." (Rom. 
12: 19.) If a Christian knows of a crime committed, it 
is right for him to make it known, that society may be pro- 
tected, but not that he may be avenged for wrong done him. 

LAWSUITS AMONG BRETHREN. 

Brother Lipscomb: When prominent members of a congregation 
resort to law to settle their financial differences, refuse to speak to 
or in any way recognize each other, and the elders for any cause fail 
to settle the matter, what is the duty of the congregation to its pas- 
tor, officers, the offended parties, and itself, and what is the duty of a 
congregation that has one of the parties to the lawsuit employed as 
its pastor? 

The law of God is just as clear and distinct in directing 
how difficulties between brethren must be settled as it is 
how a man shall put on Christ. Jesus lays down the law : 
"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go 
and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he 
shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he 
will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word 
may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, 
tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear the church, 
let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. 
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth 
shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on 
earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matt. 18: 15-18.) The 
same authority is given to the church in this case that is 
given to Peter (Matt. 16) when he delivers the terms of 
entrance into the kingdom of God. It ought not to be neg- 
lected in any case. Sometimes persons think trouble has 
gone so far and has become so public that it is needless to 
attend to the first requirement, but this is a mistake. It 
is God's order, and should be observed. If there is any 
goodness or sincerity in men, if they will to themselves 
talk over and try to settle the difficulties between them- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 397 

selves, they will do it. Troubles and difficulties grow in 
magnitude and number because when they arise the parties 
get wrathy and refuse to talk them over quietly and try to 
understand each other and remove the difficulties. They 
can never go so far as to be beyond the reach of God's 
means, nor can a Christian afford to ignore the means pro- 
vided by the Lord. I need not dwell upon the successive 
steps if this fails. They are plain and easily understood 
and obeyed. It is ordered the offended party, the one that 
first feels himself wronged, shall take the lead in this. If 
he does not, it is the duty of the elders to see that he does 
it. This law of God should no more be neglected or set 
aside than any other appointment of God. It is the duty 
of the elders to insist on the one aggrieved doing this. If 
they do not, they fail of their duty and are accountable for 
the trouble in the church. When we do what God tells us 
to do, and trouble comes despite it, as it will sometimes, 
then we are not responsible; but if we do our duty, and 
evil comes, we are clear. 

I do not believe God approves of pastors separate from 
elders, nor do I believe God makes distinction as to the ob- 
servance of his law between persons — that is, his law ap- 
plies with equal force and authority to all the servants of 
God alike= If one of another congregation violates the lav/ 
toward one of this congregation, it is none the less the duty 
of all to try to induce him to comply with the law of God, 
and, if he does not, to lay it before the congregation of 
which he is a member. To follow the law of God is the only 
way to secure his blessings and to carry out his work here 
on earth. 

LAWFUL THINGS AND THINGS EXPEDIENT. 

Please give us your views on 1 Cor. 6: 12, which reads as follows: 
"All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all 
things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power 
of any." 

Paul in this passage, when he said, "All things are lawful 
unto me," had reference, as we suppose, to such things as 
eating meat. All meats are lawful — that is, under Chris- 
tianity no meats are forbidden; but it might not be expe- 
dient at all times to eat meat, as in that day meats of certain 
kinds were offered in sacrifice to idols, and heathens thought 
if a man ate the meat offered to an idol, he thereby wor- 
shiped the idol ; and under such circumstances it was better 
not to eat on account of our influence upon others. So of 
all other things of like nature. But Paul never meant to 
say that it was lawful for him or any one else to do what 



398 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the word of God forbids. Disobedience to the word of God 
will bring ruin to all. But things indifferent, that under 
some circumstances would be no harm in the world, might 
under other circumstances be inexpedient on account of the 
influence they would have upon others. 

LAZARUS, IS THE STORY OF, AND THE RICH MAN A 
PARABLE? 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Luke 16: 19-31. Was the rich 
man in a literal hell, or was it a parable? 

Suppose I were to say it was a parable, what would be the 
conclusion? A parable literally means to put two things 
side by side, and so to compare them with each other. This 
would be a parable whether both things are real and true 
facts or not. The parable is used greatly to place an un- 
known fact beside a well-known one so as to explain the 
unknown by the well-known one. So a great many under- 
stand it means to compare an unknown something with a 
well-known one. Usually they conclude the well-known 
thing to which the unknown is compared is itself uncertain 
as to its meaning and we can fix an uncertain and indefinite 
meaning. A parable is a comparison between things. 
What are the things compared in the passage in Luke? It 
is a plain statement of matters of fact. "And it came to 
pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away 
by the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man 
also died, and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his 
eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and 
Lazarus in his bosom." If this is a parable, how could one 
tell that such a thing occurred — not as a parable, but as a 
reality? Then if it were a parable, what would it mean? 
Would it mean that sinners would not go to hell and suffer 
torments? Does the man who claims it to be a parable 
mean to say Jesus used a parable to hide and conceal the 
meaning of what was done? If not, what was done except 
just what he says was done? 

LETTERS, CHURCH. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Some of the members of this con- 
gregation have moved near other congregations and are debarred the 
privilege of membership on account of not having letters of recom- 
mendation. As we are commanded to make all things according to 
the pattern, we wish you or some of the brethren who demand such 
letters to give us the model. 

There is no direct authority for letters of commendation, 
and yet we have something near it. Paul, in 2 Cor. 3 : 1, 
says: "Do we begin again to commend ourselves? or need 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 399 

we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, or 
letters of commendation from you?" This at least implies 
that where members go where they are not known, they 
need letters of commendation from their own church, from 
those by whom they are known. But when members move 
into the bounds of a congregation where their character 
and standing are already known, then a letter would only 
amount to a matter of form ; but where they are not known, 
a letter would be advantageous, both to the member him- 
self and to the congregation where he is seeking member- 
ship. And no brother or sister ought to move from one 
congregation to another without at the earliest convenience 
taking membership with the congregation where they lo- 
cate. If not personally known, we think from plain impli- 
cation by Paul they should take a letter; but if known, let 
them take membership at once ; and the congregation where 
they moved from only need be notified of the fact, that 
they may make record of the same, and all will be right. 

E. G. S. 

There is nothing more clearly taught in the New Testa- 
ment than that Christians, going into strange communities, 
were given letters of commendation — not dismissal, but 
commendation. A member of a church in one place is a 
member wherever he goes, but a certificate of this member- 
ship and of his character as a Christian is proper. 

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, wrote a commendatory 
letter of Phoebe. (See Rom. 16: 1.) It is a model letter. 
He says: "When I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by 
your letters, them will I send to bring your liberality to 
Jerusalem." (1 Cor. 16: 3.) Here whoever had letters of 
commendation from them he would send to Jerusalem. 
Then in verse 10 he writes a commendatory letter to them 
of Timothy if he should come to Corinth. In 2 Cor. 8 : 22 
he gives commendation of Titus and other brethren, and 
says they are messengers of the churches, who doubtless 
bore the letters of the church which sent them. In the 
letter to the Ephesians, last chapter, he gives a commend- 
atory letter of Tychicus. The letter to Philemon is very 
greatly a commendatory letter of Onesimus, assuring Phi- 
lemon he had become a Christian and was now a beloved 
brother and to be treated as such. John 3 is a letter to 
Gaius commendatory of Demetrius. In 2 Cor. 3 : 1 he asks : 
"Need we, as some others, epistles of commendation to you, 
or letters of commendation from you?" He preached to 
them and had begotten them through the gospel, yet they 
had turned against him ; so he asked if he needed, as some 



400 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

others, letters of commendation from them or to them — 
showing plainly it was customary in the churches in early 
time. Some, as strangers, required letters of commenda- 
tion to them; others, letters from them. I do not see how 
the ends of Christian brotherhood could be carried out 
without them. We would look on every man who came 
claiming brotherhood and help with suspicion. 0, yes! 
The Scriptures teach that letters were common, and with- 
out them the ends of Christian brotherhood cannot be car- 
ried out. 

LIFE, EATING OF THE TREE OF. 

Recently in your comments on the Sunday-school lesson you said: 
"While man ate of the tree of life in the midst of the garden, in Eden, 
he knew no death." Did Adam and Eve eat of the fruit of the "tree 
of life?" My understanding is that they ate of the tree of the knowl- 
edge of good and evil. "And now, lest he put forth his hand, and 
take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever: therefore the 
Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden," etc. (Gen. 3: 
22, 23.) I understand that death (separation) was the penalty for 
eating of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

"God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he 
put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground 
made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to 
the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the 
midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and 
evil. ,, (Gen. 2: 8, 9.) The two trees were, by superior 
importance, worthy of special mention. "And the Lord 
God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the gar- 
den thou mayest freely eat: but of the tree of the knowl- 
edge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the 
day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." (Verses 
16, 17.) They were certainly permitted to eat of the tree 
of life. It was good to perpetuate life. It would be 
strange if they did not eat of a tree so important and help- 
ful. The women knew their privileges. Gen. 3: 6 shows 
they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. "And 
the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, 
to know good and evil : and now, lest he put forth his hand, 
and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever : 
therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of 
Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he 
drove out the man ; and he placed at the east of the garden 
of Eden Cherubims, and a naming sword which turned 
every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Gen. 3: 
22-24.) Had he eaten of the tree of life after he sinned, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 401 

he would have still lived ; to prevent it, he was cut off from 
it. He was permitted to eat of the tree of life, and did eat 
of it until he sinned. God then cut him off from it, and he 
became a dying, perishing mortal. D. L. 

LIFE-INSURANCE POLICIES. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I have read your views given in 
the Gospel Advocate upon many queries with much interest, and I 
do not recollect ever seeing anything from you upon the propriety of 
Christians taking out life policies. If it is of Christ, should not all 
Christians take out one? But the afflicted child that needs the physi- 
cian is denied. If it be not of God, should not all Christians deny 
themselves of it? 

Taking out life policies is certainly not a Christian duty, 
for there is not one word of anything of the sort in the 
word of God, and nothing is to be urged as a Christian 
duty unless it can be shown in the word of God. To say 
the best that can be said of it, it is but a matter of worldly 
wisdom and policy, by which the policyholders propose to 
provide for the future financial well-being of their fami- 
lies; and whether so doing is contrary to any of the re- 
quirements of Christianity or not, is the question. While 
we will not be dogmatical in the matter, we will, neverthe- 
less, present a few passages for the consideration of the 
thoughtful. In Matt. 6 the Savior teaches that we should 
not be anxious about the things of this life, speaks of the 
grass to-day in the field and to-morrow cast into the oven, 
and asks : "Shall he not much more clothe you, ye of lit- 
tle faith?" After thus giving very forcible illustrations 
of watch care over his people, he concludes that part of his 
sermon in these words: "Take therefore no thought for 
the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the 
things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil there- 
of." Now, it rather occurs to us that this passage is 
against the idea of looking away into the far-off future 
and investing surplus money that might be used for the im- 
mediate advancement of the Master's cause. It does look 
as if there is a manifestation of distrust in the Savior's 
promise that God will take care of his people when such 
anxious thought is exercised as an oversight of this com- 
mand to take no thought (be not anxious) for the morrow. 

Again, the Savior says : "Lay not up for yourselves treas- 
ures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and 
where thieves break through and steal : but lay up for your- 
selves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust 
doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor 
steal: for where your treasure is, there will your heart be 
also." Now, it does look like laying up treasures on earth — 



402 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and that, too, in a sense that the Savior forbids — when we 
lay up our money in a life-insurance company. That cer- 
tainly is not laying up treasure in heaven. But, plainly, it 
is laying up treasures upon earth. If we use our money to 
honor God, then we are laying up treasure in heaven, as is 
clearly taught by the Savior in Matt. 25, where he speaks 
of the righteous having fed the hungry and clothed the 
naked, etc. Treasures thus laid up cannot be consumed by 
moth nor rust, nor can thieves break through and steal these 
treasures ; but when we lay up treasures in life-insurance 
companies, they are liable at any time to be stolen by 
thieves ; and this one fact, if there were nothing else in it, 
would make me very slow to invest in such schemes. Life- 
insurance companies have been breaking and sinking peo- 
ple's money from the first origin of them until now. Much 
as may be said of policies paid and widows saved from pov- 
erty, but a mere pittance of what is paid in is ever paid out. 
If anything like the amount of money was paid out that is 
paid in, every company in the land would break. 

Again, the Savior says to his disciples: "And I say unto 
you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of un- 
righteousness ; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into 
everlasting habitations." (Luke 16: 9.) We understand 
this passage to teach that the followers of Christ shall make 
such use of their earthly goods as to make God and Christ 
their friends, that they may at last receive them into eter- 
nal mansions. The question is: Can we make God our 
friend by putting money into a life-insurance company in- 
stead of taking care of the orphans and advancing the 
cause of God by sounding out the word of God to a perish- 
ing world? 

We think these passages, and other similar ones, are 
worth the consideration of the brethren. The blessing of 
God is worth more to the Christian than all the strength 
of this world combined. We cannot make God our friend 
with our worldly goods or money, unless we use it accord- 
ing to his word. These passages, we think, are sufficient 
to at least make it doubtful whether Christians should in- 
vest their money that way or not. But no one, we pre- 
sume, will say that it is wrong to let them alone. No one 
will say that we neglect a Christian duty by so doing. 
Therefore we are sure that it is safe, beyond all dispute, to 
let them alone. Whenever there is doubt whether it is 
safe to go into anything or not, but no doubt in the world 
but that it is right to keep out, then let us always be on the 
safe side. Merely as a financial arrangement, we think it 
is not a very good one. Only a few of the number that 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 403 

take out policies keep up their payments till completed, so 
that their families can draw money on them at their death ; 
and when they cease paying, their policies are generally 
forfeited, and what money they pay is lost. Besides, sickly 
people, that are likely to die soon, cannot obtain policies 
upon any reasonable terms. They call for healthy men 
that are likely to live long enough to pay the full amount 
that their policy calls for, and that class of men has but 
little use for them. If these life-insurance companies 
would make as full a report of the moneys paid in that are 
never received back at all as they do of the policies they pay, 
the probabilities are that they would make quite a different 
impression upon the world. And, finally, when we are so 
careful to lay up treasures upon earth in this way,, it looks 
a little as if our hearts were there. E. G. S. 

LIFE ETERNAL, DO WE HAVE, NOW? 

Brother Sewell: Does the word of God teach that a person has 
eternal life in his possession as soon as he becomes obedient to the 
gospel? I discussed this question with a brother. He affirmed; I 
denied. His main proof texts were John 3: 36; 5: 24; 1 John 5: 11-13. 

It is certain that no man actually possesses eternal life 
while living in mortal flesh; for so long as life lasts, a man 
may sin and miss eternal life. When the Scriptures speak 
of Christians' having eternal life, as though they already 
possessed it, that only means that they have started for it, 
have entered upon a course of service that will ultimate in 
life eternal if faithfully followed through life ; but if at any 
time the child of God abandons the narrow way, lapses into 
sin, and continues therein, he will as certainly be lost as 
that the Bible is true. Evidently the apostle Paul came as 
near having eternal life while still in mortal flesh as any 
man can; yet as long as he lived he realized there was 
danger to him of missing heaven. He said when far ad- 
vanced in the Christian life: "But I keep under my body, 
and bring it into subjection : lest that by any means, when I 
have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." 
(1 Cor. 9: 27.) Since Paul, devoted and confident as he 
was, struggled so earnestly to keep the mastery of his 
fleshly body, lest he should be cast away at last, what Chris- 
tian can claim to-day that he is not in the same liability 
that Paul was ? But when Paul had come to the end of his 
life, he could then say, with all assurance: "Henceforth 
there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the 
Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and 
not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appear- 
ing." (2 Tim. 4: 8.) When Paul's course was finished, 



404 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

when he had kept the faith to the end of his life, he was 
then sure of eternal life, but not till then. When a man 
becomes a Christian and while he faithfully lives the Chris- 
tian, he is in a state of preparation for eternal life, which 
he will be sure to receive on the other side; and this is as 
near to it as men get in this life. 

LIFE, THE, HID WITH CHRIST. 

Please explain Col. 3: 3 through the Gospel Advocate. It reads: 
"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." What 
life is hid with Christ in God? 

We understand the life referred to here is eternal life, 
which Jesus has gone to prepare and to which all the Lord's 
people will be taken when he comes to judge the world and 
to take his people home. He said while on earth to his dis- 
ciples: "I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and 
prepare a place for you, I will come again, and take you to 
myself; that where I am, there ye may be also." (John 14 : 
2, 3.) This is the life we understand Paul to refer to in 
the above passage. 

LIFE, WHAT THE BOOK OF. 

Brother Seivell: There are different ideas in our Bible class con- 
cerning "the book of life" mentioned in Phil. 4: 3. Some think it 
has reference to the New Testament; others, to a record book. Is 
there any scripture to prove that there is a record book? 

The book of life in the passage you name, as we under- 
stand it, is the Lamb's book of life kept in heaven, in which 
the names of God's children are kept. In Rev. 3 : 5 we have 
this language : "He that overcometh, the same shall be 
clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name 
out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before 
,my Father, and before his angels." This indicates very 
clearly that the names of the saints are kept in heaven and 
that none of those who continue faithful until death will 
ever be blotted out. We quote this also: "And I saw the 
dead, small and great, stand before God ; and the books were 
opened: and another book was opened, which is the book 
of life. . . . And whosoever was not found written in 
the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." (Rev. 20: 
12-15.) These passages certainly show that there is a 
book of life kept before the Lord in heaven, and that when 
the Lord's people stand at the judgment this book will be 
opened, as well as the books of the Bible, and that all the 
faithful ones whose names are still on the book of life will 
be passed through the pearly gates; and this is, doubtless, 
the book of your passage. So the thing for Christians to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 405 

do is to so live on earth that their names will never be 
blotted out, for it is quite certain that if we are not faithful 
unto death our names will be blotted out of that precious 
book. 

LIGHT, THE, WHICH LIGHTETH, ETC. 

Please tell what this passage teaches: "That was the true Light, 
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." (John 1:9.) 
How is the light imparted? Is every man in the world enlightened 
in regard to duty? Does not the word world mean the world of men? 
If not, why not? To what event did Jesus refer when he said: "Here- 
after ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and 
descending upon the Son of man?" (John 1: 51.) 

The world means the world — the earth on which we live. 
We do not think the reading is exactly correct. It would 
be better because clearer: "That is the true Light, which 
cometh into the world, which lighteth every man." The 
expression, "that cometh into the world," ought to be con- 
nected with "the Light" that enlightens every one instead 
of with "every one." This, however, does not materi- 
ally change the point of difficulty. The point is : "Is every 
one enlightened ? If so, how ?" There are styles of speech 
peculiar to every language that are difficult to be translated 
literally into other languages. Hence, they are a little 
awkward in expressing the true meaning in other lan- 
guages. An example of this is : "There is none other name 
under heaven given among men, whereby we must be 
saved." This literally would indicate that we must, of ne- 
cessity, be saved. The true meaning is : Every one who is 
saved must be saved through the name of Christ. There is 
none other name under heaven given among men through 
which it is possible to be saved, is the true meaning. It is 
an idiom of the original language that is difficult to trans- 
late into English. The passage under consideration is al- 
most identical in character. It does not mean that "every 
man is enlightened by that light which cometh into the 
world." It means of those who are enlightened, all are en- 
lightened by that light which cometh into the world; it 
means that he is the only light of the world ; that no man 
in the world ever has been or can be enlightened save by 
that light. All who are enlightened are enlightened by that 
light which cometh into the world. Many are not enlight- 
ened, but all who are enlightened are enlightened by that 
light. The point was in reference to John and Jesus. John 
was not that light, but Jesus was the true light. It inci- 
dentally teaches that there is no true light in the world 
save that which comes through Christ Jesus. There is 
nothing in human reason, nothing in the conscience of man 



406 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

to enlighten him; only the true light which cometh into 
the world can enlighten any man. Hence, "no man can 
come to the Father, save through me." 

The light is sufficient to enlighten every man in the 
world, and none can be enlightened save through this light ; 
but some refuse to come to the light. "He was in the world, 
and the world was made by him, and the world knew him 
not." Some come not to the light because their deeds are 
evil. 

We have suggested that the idea that every one who de- 
sires to do the will of God will know that will ; to him, un- 
der the providence of God, it will come. But God casts not 
his pearls before swine ; he does not carry that light to him 
who is unwilling to receive it. So the light coming into the 
world enlightens only those who open their eyes to behold 
that light — those who are willing to be enlightened. 

The enlightening is done by the teaching and example of 
Christ and the Spirit he sent into the world, which taught 
through the apostles and gave to us the Scriptures. It is 
not merely an instinct or of the intellect. It is an example 
that reaches the heart, molds it, instructs, develops, and en- 
lightens the conscience. It, in a word, is the true and only 
source of good and of all good to man. 

The angels ascending and descending upon him possibly 
was not literal, but meant that he would be constantly 
watched over and guarded here in the world by the angels 
of God, and that their ministration to him as the Son of 
God would be manifested to Nathanael in the care and love 
God would show him. D. L. 

LIQUOR TRAFFIC, ASSISTING IN THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Some of the brethren are dissatis- 
fied with my business and want me to write to you in regard to it. 
If I am doing wrong, I wish to know it. I am doing business for the 
firm of M. H. Puckett & Co., who are dealers in dry goods, groceries, 
and whisky; but there are two houses. I do not stay in the saloon, 
but tend solely to the dry-goods house, and have nothing to do with 
the saloon, only I accept a certain part of the profits of the firm for 
my salary. I invested no money to carry on the saloon. Now, is it 
right for me to have anything to do with a firm that sells whisky? 
No person dislikes the whisky business more than I do. 

Selling whisky as a beverage is a business that degrades 
men and women, brings much evil and no good to society. 
Such a calling is sinful. The profits from it are the price 
of human degradation and human crime. A Christian man 
cannot engage in the work of degrading his fellow man. 
The price of that degradation he cannot use without bring- 
ing a curse upon himself and family. He cannot bring the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 407 

price of crime into the house of God. Christians ought at 
any price to keep free from all responsibility for human 
sins and human degradation. It is the wicked one that de- 
grades and corrupts men. Christians cannot assist him in 
this work nor take wages for the degradation. Christ lifts 
up, elevates, and purifies. Christians must be coworkers 
with him in the redemption of the world from sin. D. L. 

LIVES, LAYING DOWN OUR, FOR BRETHREN. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: The latter clause of 1 John 3: 16 
reads as follows: "We ought to lay down our lives for the brethren." 
Give us an example or a case in which we ought to lay down our lives 
for the brethren. 

The opportunities for laying down our lives for the 
brethren in this country are not as frequent as they were 
when and where this sentence was penned. The devil, the 
great author of all evil to the church, has in these latter 
years and in our country been playing the role of an angel 
of light, which he sometimes does, as the Scriptures inform 
us. When acting this part, he does not persecute ; but, un- 
der the garb of friendship, he compromises and flatters 
and seduces from the path of right by offering things very 
similar, by proposing to work in harmony with the people 
of God, by proposing to educate, moralize, refine, and ele- 
vate the people ; and in this work, so plausible and promis- 
ing, he calls upon God's children to form alliances with him 
in this work. He is willing to educate them to be moral, 
religious, zealous, devoted, refined, and even professed fol- 
lowers of God, if they will only work to upbuild his king- 
dom and let the substantial fruit of their labor inure to his 
benefit. The Christian world has accepted the compro- 
mise, and is working to-day under the direction of the devil 
in the garb of "an angel of light." He does not destroy the 
lives of Christians when he can use them. They are too 
profitable to him. Were they to reject all his advances, 
spurn his compromises, refuse to work for him, and deter- 
mine that whatsoever they do shall all be done in the name 
of the Lord Jesus, it might not be long until he would offer 
opportunities for them "to lay down their lives" for Christ 
and the brethren. 

But there are occasions when a man may lay down his 
life for the brethren. When the yellow fever visits Mem- 
phis or the cholera Nashville, and the brethren are poor, 
needing help, care, comfort, sympathy, and counsel, then a 
brother can lay down his life, or he can offer his life, and 
leave to God's providence whether it is laid down or pre- 
served for the brethren. A Christian can only offer to lay 



408 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

his life down for Christ or his brethren. He cannot pos- 
itively do it of himself. He cannot take his life himself. 
This would be to cowardly fly from duty. He can only 
offer it by firmly treading the paths of duty, even when this 
path leads to danger. Then it is left to the providence of 
God whether that life is "laid down" or preserved for the 
good of Christ and his children. 

God demands living sacrifices as well as dying or dead 
ones. The living sacrifices are just as precious in his 
sight as the dying ones. Paul preferred for his own sake 
to lay down his life, which was one of suffering, toil, pov- 
erty, and persecution; yet for the sake of his brethren he 
bore the burden of life still longer. His body was a living 
sacrifice for God and his brethren. While, then, it is true 
that Christians ought to be willing to brave danger in times 
of persecution, face the pestilence, and incur poverty, want, 
hatred, and the scorn of men, whenever fidelity to Christ 
or the good of his brethren demand it, still to continue and 
suffer and live and labor are frequently better for our 
brethren than to depart and be with Christ. We can give 
our bodies as sacrifices, living or dead, by standing to the 
truth, incurring even the hatred and wrath of brethren 
themselves, even in maintaining the truth against the 
world, the flesh, and the devil, including sometimes the 
brethren themselves. Man may suffer for the truth, may 
bear odium for the truth, may become poor for the truth, 
may incur danger from cold or hunger or neglect for the 
truth, may expose and sacrifice life in overwork in efforts 
to teach the world and the brethren the right and true ways 
of the Lord. When he does it, he lays down his life for the 
brethren just as much as when he braves danger and to 
shield them from harm incurs persecution for Christ's sake. 

We may not all wear the victor's wreath won at the stake 
of martyrdom, but we may do just as praiseworthy acts by 
quietly taking up the burden of life, great or small, and pa- 
tiently bearing all ill incurred in the performance of duty. 
If in that performance death comes, then the life is laid 
down for Christ and the brethren. If death does not come, 
but suffering be endured and the cross borne for Christ 
and his truth, then the body is a living sacrifice, well pleas- 
ing and acceptable to God. 

LOAVES, HOW MANY IN THE SUPPER? ETC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer the following: (1) 
Is it right to have more than one loaf in partaking of the Lord's Sup- 
per, and is it necessary that an elder shall break the loaf? (2) What 
is meant by the command: "Honor widows that are widows indeed?" 
(1 Tim. 5: 3.) 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 409 

(1) Just so many loaves represent the body of Christ as 
are necessary for the observance of the Supper by those par- 
taking. We have known brethren to stickle over the fact 
that the Savior spoke of but one loaf of bread, yet would 
use two or three or four cups or glasses in serving the wine. 
The Savior used one cup only, as well as one loaf only. 
But one individual partakes of only one loaf, should there 
be fifty present, and that one loaf represents to him the 
body of Christ. The controversy over this is magnifying 
a molehill into a mountain. The idea that the elders must 
break the loaf is a part of Romish ritualism. If there is 
but one loaf that needs to be distributed to different persons 
waiting on the congregation, he must needs break it for con- 
venience, but not because Christ broke it. He is not Christ 
nor in Christ's stead to the congregation. 

(2) The passage from Timothy ought to be very easily 
understood, yet is sadly misunderstood, simply because the 
connection is not observed. The passage refers to the sup- 
port of widows by the church. The word honor in the 
verse ("honor widows that are widows indeed") means to 
support them. They are to be supported by the church, or 
honored ; but if any have children or nephews, these are to 
"show piety," or support their widowed mothers, grand- 
mothers, or aunts at their home. He tells who are widows 
indeed that are to be supported by the church — they are to 
be devoted and blameless. Verse 8 says: "If any provide 
not for his own [widows], and especially for those [wid- 
ows] of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is 
worse than an infidel." This verse is almost universally 
misunderstood. We remember to have seen Brother Jo- 
seph Franklin not long since apply this verse to the sup- 
port of wife — only the second time we ever noticed a mis- 
application or misinterpretation of a passage of scripture 
by him. It is right to support a man's wife and children, 
but this verse does not teach it. This verse applies exclu- 
sively to the widows related to him, and especially to those 
connected immediately with his family household. 

After telling what widows are to be honored or supported 
by the church and which by their relatives, he says: "Let 
not a widow be taken into the number [to be supported by 
the church] under threescore years old," etc. In verse 11 
he says the younger ones supported by the church, with 
nothing to do, would wax wanton and marry. He advises 
them to marry, etc. 

He sums it all up in verse 16 : "If any man or woman 
that believeth have widows [mothers, grandmothers, or 
aunts, as described in verses 9, 10], let them relieve them, 



410 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and let not the church be charged [with their support] ; 
that it may relieve them that are widows indeed" — those 
who have no believing relatives to support them. The 
whole passage is direction in reference to the necessity of 
honoring or supporting widows, telling which should and 
which should not be supported by the church. D. L. 

LORD'S DAY, THE. 

Will you please give Bible authority as to the Lord's day? Have 
we, the Gentiles, changed the day? If so, what will be the conse- 
quence? 

There has been no change of day by anybody. The old 
Jewish Sabbath was done away at the time Christ came 
and took the law out of the way. The Sabbath day was a 
part of that law, and Christ took the law all away at his 
death, as is plainly taught in Col. 2, 2 Cor. 3, and many 
other passages. The Lord's day, the first day of the week, 
is a new day entirely, and is to be kept by Christians in 
memory of the resurrection of Christ from the dead and 
as the day on which to meet and remember his death by 
taking the Supper, and thus honor the Lord and strengthen 
their own hearts and lives in the cause of the Master. So 
men have no responsibility in the matter, only to observe it 
to the honor of the Savior. 

LORD'S DAY, TEACHING CHILDREN ON. 

Brother Sewell: We read the Gospel Advocate, and we think it an 
excellent paper; and we especially enjoy reading your articles. 
Please give us an article in the Advocate on the duty of parents and 
the churches to children, the best way to teach children on Lord's 
day, etc. 

We have no special method to lay down as to how this 
work should be done; but as to the importance of it, too 
much could scarcely be said. It is well for parents, and 
especially mothers, to begin early to tell little children 
some plain and simple facts or stories in the history of 
Christ, and thus get them interested in Bible facts. Chil- 
dren, as a rule, love to hear Bible stories when quite young ; 
and if told simple incidents in the life of Christ, they will 
love to hear them and will be interested in them, and 
grown-up people will often be astonished at the accuracy 
with which small children will remember them. This sort 
of teaching should be done at opportune times and never 
continued too long at a time, or they may tire out on it and 
not be benefited by such exercises. As soon as they get so 
they can begin to read and take an interest in what is read 
to them, read short stories in the life of Christ, and sim- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 411 

plify them so that they may be able to understand them. 
But such exercises should be brief. Nor should they ever 
be made to feel that a task is being imposed upon them 
when they are too young to appreciate such matters, but 
keep them feeling as if they were only for their pleasure. 
As soon as they are old enough to go into a class in the 
Lord's-day school, get them interested in that, and go with 
them, and see that they are put into something they can 
understand and profit by. It is a nice point to get children 
started in Bible studies in a way they will be both pleased 
and benefited. If little children are properly managed, it 
will be interesting to grown-up people to see what an in- 
terest they will take in them and how rapidly they will ad- 
vance in learning Bible history. One defect in the educa- 
tion of children is that the Bible part of it is too much neg- 
lected, and what little is done is not done in such way as 
to be effective or of permanent benefit. Instead of the Bi- 
ble being considered the most important part of the educa- 
tion of children, it is generally made the matter of least 
importance, when in reality it is by far the most important 
part, and should be so impressed upon children as soon as 
they can begin to appreciate its plain historical facts. 
Teachers in Sunday schools should be careful to impress 
the importance of Bible history and the teaching of the 
Savior as they are capable of appreciating it. Especially 
should they teach the plan of salvation. Children should 
not be troubled with the profound and difficult problems of 
Bible teaching till they get old enough to understand them. 
But to neglect to begin teaching the plain and practical 
things that are taught in the Bible is a great neglect of duty 
on the part of parents and others who are responsible in the 
work of teaching the young. The gospel plan of salvation 
as written in the New Testament is exceedingly plain and 
can be as easily understood by the children as the plainest 
stories in their school books. Children thus taught are 
likely to become Christians while they are young and before 
their hearts begin to be filled by the vanities and follies of 
this life. There is no other branch of education so impor- 
tant as this, and yet no other part of education so much neg- 
lected as this. The responsibility of parents and teachers 
is wonderfully heavy along this line. No man can tell how 
many souls have already been lost by neglect of this duty. 
We hope that parents, teachers, and all who are in any wise 
responsible for the teaching of the young will think more 
seriously on these things. Think how happy you would be 
to meet with many in the glory home that you assisted in 
preparing for a place in that happy home. Let nothing, 



412 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

therefore, hinder you from so grand a work. Especially 
let Christian parents work in earnest in the matter of help- 
ing their children prepare for such a happy and glorious 
outcome. 

LORD'S SUPPER, QUERY ABOUT TAKING. 

Brother Sew ell: Is there a positive command to take the Lord's 
Supper to God's children? If so, please give chapter and verse. 
Some think there is as near a command to wash feet as to take the 
Lord's Supper. 

It seems strange to me that any child of God should be 
inquiring after a positive command to eat at his own Fa- 
ther's table, and thereby commune with Jesus, who has 
done so much for him. It occurs to me that Christians 
should esteem it as a privilege to eat at the Father's table, 
and thus feast upon the spiritual food the Lord has or- 
dained for them. It would seem just as rational for help- 
less, dependent children of an earthly father to ask for a 
positive command to eat at their own father's table. Yet 
this is never done. These helpless little children embrace 
the privilege provided and extended to them as the only 
means of perpetuating their earthly lives, and never think 
of asking if their father has commanded them to do it. 
God's children are as dependent upon his divine provisions 
of spiritual food for spiritual life as earthly children are 
upon the provisions of earthly parents for life in the flesh. 
Instead of asking for positive authority to go to the Lord's 
house on the first day of the week to eat at the Lord's table, 
they should rejoice in the privilege extended to them, and 
rejoice and thank and praise his holy name that he has per- 
mitted them to enter into such close relations with him, to 
enjoy such rich communion with him at his own table. 
They should be glad indeed when they may go up to the 
house of the Lord to feast with him and his children. But 
when people hold back and ask for a positive command to 
take the Lord's Supper, it really looks as if they do not 
want to go, and that unless it is a thing that must be done 
or they will miss heaven they will not do it. But if such 
must have positive authority, a positive command, it is at 
hand. When Jesus instituted the Supper, he said: "This 
do in remembrance of me." (Luke 22 : 19.) When by mi- 
raculous vision he gave the Lord's Supper in charge to the 
apostle Paul, he repeated the same words: "This do in re- 
membrance of me." (1 Cor. 11: 24.) Here is not only a 
command, but a repetition of it. This do is the same as Do 
this. I do not see how a more positive command could be 
given. The command to repent or to be baptized is no 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 413 

more positive than this. This do — that is, attend to the 
Lord's Supper; for that is the very thing he was talking 
about. 

This condensed and impressive sentence accomplishes 
two ends. It gives, in the first place, the positive command 
to attend to the Lord's Supper, and. in the next place, in 
the latter clause gives the design of it — in remembrance of 
me. I thank the Lord for that grand expression : This do 
in remembrance of me. It tells us at the same time what 
to do and gives the purpose for which it is to be done. 0, 
how full and explicit is the Lord's word ! When Paul re- 
peated this sentence to the Corinthians, he was not merely 
giving them information as to what the Lord had given him, 
but was giving it as a positive command to them to do this 
very thing — that is, attend to the Lord's Supper. The 
command is a general one in its bearing, meaning all Chris- 
tians to the end of time. Therefore, here is a divine and 
positive command, first given by Jesus himself and repeated 
by the Holy Spirit through Paul, applying to all the Lord's 
people through all time. 

Not only have we this positive command to attend to the 
Lord's Supper, but the Lord has set the time. "And upon 
the first day of the week, when the disciples came together 
to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart 
on the morrow." (Acts 20: 7.) Paul had tarried at this 
place seven days — that is, as we would express it, he got to 
Troas on Monday, and remained over the next first day of 
the week, which made the seven days, and departed at the 
end of the seven days — that is, probably on the morning 
of the eight day — having been there seven days and nights. 
Then also, in 1 Cor. 16, Paul speaks of their meeting on the 
first day of the week as a fixed custom. Thus by divine 
precedent and example of inspired men the first day of the 
week is fixed as a divine appointment to the end of time as 
the day on which the disciples of Christ are to meet to 
break bread. Then, in Heb. 10 : 25, the apostle says : "Not 
forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the man- 
ner of some is," etc. The question arises: What assem- 
bling is this which Christians are positively required not to 
forsake? There is but one assembling required in the New 
Testament, and that is the assembling of the saints together 
on each first day of the week to worship the Lord in his own 
appointments. 

The first day of the week is, therefore, the time divinely 
set as the day upon which the Lord's people are required to 
meet to break bread. Therefore we have the positive com- 
mand from Jesus himself, and repeated by the Holy Spirit 



414 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

through Paul, to attend to breaking bread. Then we have 
also the day divinely set on which it is to be done and the 
positive divine requisition not to forsake it. The first 
church at Jerusalem began at once to comply with the di- 
vine command of Jesus : "This do in remembrance of me." 
They began at once to break bread. "And they continued 
steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine [teaching] and fellow- 
ship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers." (Acts 2 : 
42.) Thus from the very day the church of God was es- 
tablished on earth the disciples began to obey the injunc- 
tion, This do, etc.; and it was the universal custom of all 
Christians everywhere in New Testament times to meet on 
the first day of the week to break bread. This day is called 
in Revelation "the Lord's day." Now, surely here is au- 
thority enough, if that is all that is needed. Shall we, then, 
observe it? Jesus said : "If a man love me, he will keep my 
words." The command, This do, is the command of Jesus ; 
and every soul that loves him will keep these words to the 
full extent of his ability. And, doubtless, there ought to be 
a much larger measure of the love of God cultivated in the 
hearts of many who claim to be the disciples of Christ. 
With a good measure of love welling up in the hearts of the 
Lord's people, they would not spend much time hunting for 
commands on this institution. Nay, they would sooner in- 
quire: "Will the Lord's table be set to-day in my reach, 
and can I have the exalted privilege of remembering the 
death of my Lord and Master with my Father's children ?" 
This will be all they will want to know when the Lord's day 
comes. Ah, what a gracious privilege to true and loving 
disciples of Christ to sit at the Lord's table with his peo- 
ple and feast with him and his servants, his followers ! 
Instead of more authority, we need more of the love of God 
in the soul. We have the authority. Now let us cultivate 
the love for God and Jesus that will lead us to comply with 
the demands made upon us. The man that wants to go to 
heaven in the proper sense of the expression, loves to honor 
and obey the Savior who died for him, will love to sit at his 
table and remember the great sufferings of Jesus to pro- 
vide the way by which he may go to heaven, and will love 
these things more and more as the years go by. 

As to foot washing, that is a positive requirement, too, 
but not as a church ordinance. It was done by the Savior 
in a quiet, private sort of way, after supper, and not the 
Lord's Supper, either. It was done as an example of kind- 
ness and courtesy that Christians ought to do for one an- 
other, and is mentioned but once more in the New Testa- 
ment, and then mentioned as a private duty — done at home. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 415 

This is where Paul, speaking of the private home services 
of a widow, says, among other things : "If she have washed 
the saints' feet." In that sort of way, foot washing, if 
needed, should be done now. But it is not now, and never 
was, a church ordinance or something to be done in public 
assembly ; but the Lord's Supper is something to be attended 
to by all Christians in public assemblies as long as there are 
Christians on earth to assemble. E. G. S. 

LORD'S SUPPER, MAY WE EAT WHERE THE ORGAN 
IS? 

Brother Sewell: Business called me away from home, and on 
Lord's day I reached a certain town in Arkansas just as the bells 
were calling the people to their respective places of worship. I de- 
cided to go to church. I had been in the house but a few minutes 
when a young lady began playing on the organ, while another young 
lady played on some other instrument. They played and sung sev- 
eral songs; then had Sunday school; then prepared the table; and, 
after giving thanks for the bread and wine, the deacons passed the 
emblems to the congregation; but while this was being done, the or- 
gan was kept going. This made me feel sad, and I refused to par- 
take of the emblems. Now, my question is: Did I do right, or did I 
do wrong? 

We could scarcely give a direct, positive answer to this 
question. It depends upon how much it takes to vitiate the 
Lord's Supper and make it of none effect to an individual 
child of God. If the brother had himself thrust this hu- 
man innovation upon the Lord's appointment, to gratify 
his own ear or pride, that fact, in my judgment, would 
have destroyed the design of the Lord's Supper to him and 
would have turned it into a mere human affair, and such 
we understand it was to those who thrust this human inven- 
tion upon this sacred appointment mentioned by our 
brother. But in the case of this brother it was different. 
He had nothing to do in introducing the innovation, and in 
his heart repudiated all that part of the procedure; and I 
would not say positively that it would be wrong for a Chris- 
tian, in such a case, to take the bread and wine, repudiating 
in his heart the human part. But there is another feature 
in the case that should be considered. Paul laid down this 
general principle when discussing the matter of eating 
meat, observing certain days, and such like: "I know, and 
am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing un- 
clean of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be 
unclean, to him it is unclean." (Rom. 14: 14.) If our 
brother considered that the introduction of the organ so 
far corrupted the Lord's Supper that it ceased to be the 
Lord's Supper to any one, then he certainly did right, ac- 
cording to Paul, not to partake on such an occasion. "For 



416 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

whatsoever is not of faith is sin/' (Verse 23.) But if, 
on the other hand, a Christian, on such an occasion, should 
understand the sin was altogether on the part of those who 
put the innovation in, and that he had no part in that, and 
that taking the bread and wine would be the Lord's Supper 
to him, I would not say he would do wrong to partake ; nei- 
ther would I say that he could continue to do so to such an 
extent as would seem to encourage the innovation. In 
such a case he would become a party to it and would sin by 
recognizing and encouraging a human invention as though 
it were of God. While there are so many human inventions 
connected with the work and worship of the church, it is 
sometimes a very nice point to determine just what we 
ought to do. 

LORD'S SUPPER, CARRYING THE, TO THE SICK. 

Brother Seivell: Is it right to carry the Lord's Supper to any 
brother or sister when they are sick? One of the sisters of this con- 
gregation called for the elders to come and bring the Supper to her 
for the last time, and one of the elders said he would never carry the 
Supper to one if all of them died. I want to know if the elders did 
right, and are there any grounds or commandments for so doing? 

If it be inconsistent with any principle of Christianity to 
carry the emblems to one that is sick on the first day of the 
week, I am unaware of it. It is a matter of history that 
in the first age of the church, when any of the members 
were known to be sick and unable to attend the meetings on 
the first day of the week, as soon as the services were over 
at the place of meeting, the deacons were sent with some 
bread and wine to wait upon the sick ones, so that all might 
have the opportunity to partake. This item of history is 
given in Mosheim's church history. And I have known it 
done often, and I cannot see how there can be anything 
amiss in it. There surely must have been some other diffi- 
culty in the way of the above elder besides the mere mat- 
ter of carrying the bread and wine to a sick member on the 
first day of the week. I do not see on what ground any one 
could oppose that. I have many times assisted in that 
work, and would at any time do so again if called upon, and 
that with pleasure and with a perfectly clear conscience. 
But as the brother's reasons for not being willing to carry 
the bread and wine to this member are not given, of course 
I could not undertake to meet them. E. G. S. 

LORD'S TABLE, OR WITH WHOM "NOT TO EAT," ETC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give us your views on 1 Cor. 
5: 11 — whether it has reference alone to the Lord's table or a literal 
table. What should be done with one called a "brother" that says 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 417 

God has commanded an impossibility — for a man to feed his family 
and live the life of a Christian? 

Brethren differ in their notions of this passage, as to 
whether it refers to the Lord's table or an ordinary table. 
We understand it to refer to an ordinary table at home, in 
private life, and that, as Christians, we should not so far 
recognize a man guilty of the things mentioned in the 
above as to sit down and eat with him while he is thus act- 
ing. We may, and ought to, admonish such and try to in- 
duce them to live a different life ; but we should do nothing 
that would in the least indicate that we fellowship them in 
their wicked course of life. Let all such understand that 
they have to leave off their sins or they cannot enjoy the 
society of the children of God. Too much friendship is 
often shown to downright wickedness by associating with 
men called "brethren" engaged in wicked practices, as 
though nothing was wrong. 

As to the second question, no man that knows enough 
about the Bible to be a Christian believes any such thing. 
No man that fears God and desires to serve him believes 
that a man cannot live the Christian and support his family. 
Men who love the world more than they love the Lord and 
determine to make money at all hazards and do things to 
make money that they know are contrary to the will of God, 
and want an excuse for it, may make such a claim; but no 
one that appreciates Christianity and desires to go to 
heaven at last will for a moment indulge such a thought. 
Men who make such an excuse as that for their wickedness 
and dishonesty are not on the road to heaven and will never 
reach that happy home without an entire change in their 
course of life. Any man can live the Christian and sup- 
port a family that will, and those who do not will be held 
accountable. E. G. S. 

LOTS CHOICE. 

Brother Sewell: Do you consider Lot a selfish man for taking 
choice of the land near Sodom, where he pitched his tent, after Abra- 
ham had given him the privilege of making the choice? Also, do you 
think that Lot was a good man? 

There certainly was a good degree of selfishness in the 
action of Lot in choosing the plain of Jordan and turning 
his attention toward Sodom. He chose this country be- 
cause it promised more outcome and more wealth than any 
other section that he could find. "And Lot lifted up his 
eyes, and beheld all the plain of Jordan, that it was well wa- 
tered everywhere, before the Lord destroyed Sodom and 
Gomorrah, even as the garden of the Lord, like the land of 
Egypt, as thou comest unto Zoar. Then Lot chose him all 



418 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the plain of Jordan; and Lot journeyed east: and they sep- 
arated themselves the one from the other." (Gen. 13: 
10, 11.) This shows what prompted Lot in his choice. It 
was a goodly land and promised wealth, and he wanted it. 
If he had been free from selfishness, he would have said to 
Abraham, as he was his uncle and the older man : "You take 
your choice, and then I will find a place to go to." But in- 
stead of that he quickly and greedily accepted Abraham's 
proposition and chose that country because it was the best 
he could find. The country was the richest he could find, 
and for that very reason he chose it, and left his uncle to 
do the best he could. If this does not show selfishness and 
a disposition to appropriate the best to himself, I do not 
know what would. And when he got started in there and 
found the country was so fine, he continued there, although 
he knew the people there were exceedingly wicked, and thus 
jeopardized the future spiritual good of his children for 
the sake of gaining wealth and prosperity. 

But this very same thing that influenced Lot is to-day in- 
fluencing thousands of Christians to look wholly after that 
which promises greatest wealth and prosperity, to the neg- 
lect of spiritual good, both to themselves and their fami- 
lies, and especially that of their children. 

Selfishness is by no means the only bad quality mani- 
fested by Lot. He allowed his greed for gain to lead him 
into temptations and under sinful influences that led him 
and his family to ultimate ruin. Although he and his two 
daughters were saved from the terrible overthrow of Sodom 
and Gomorrah, yet those daughters had become so accus- 
tomed to the sinful habits of the people of Sodom that it 
prepared them for the great sin they committed against 
their father, and thus became the mothers of two nations 
by their father, which are known in the Bible as very cor- 
rupt people. These were the Moabites and the Ammonites. 
Thus the sun of Lot went down behind a dark cloud and his 
posterity a disgrace to the world. 

So now when Christians allow the love of money or prop- 
erty to lead them instead of the word of God and a desire 
to honor God and to put their families under influences to 
help them into spiritual lives and spiritual good, they are 
not likely to come out any better for themselves or families 
than did Lot and his family. Let Christians be sure to fol- 
low that which will make for the spiritual good both of 
themselves and families, and all things else will be well. 
They will be sure to have enough of this world's goods to 
take them through, if they will be faithful to the Lord. 
Abraham left a posterity that has been, at least in one 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 419 

sense, blessing the world till now, and will to the end of 
time ; while Lot left a posterity that, as long as they existed, 
were a curse. 

Let all, therefore, take warning from Lot's course and 
its terrible outcome. People do not study the lives of men 
as given in the Bible and their outcome as they should. It 
will do any one good to study and contrast the lives of Lot 
and Abraham and their outcome, if they will study to adopt 
the good and reject the evil. E. G. S. 

LOT, HOW WAS THE, CAST? 

Please tell us through the Gospel Advocate how lots were cast. 
Two men were selected. The apostles prayed and cast lots. There 
had to be an expression made in some way. In John 19: 24 we find 
that the soldiers cast lots for our Lord's coat. There was an expres- 
sion made. Please explain how this expression was made. 

As to the process of casting lots, we are not informed in 
the word of God. One method of casting lots is to put the 
names of two or more persons for whom lots are to be cast 
in a basket or vessel in such a way that the one who draws 
cannot read the names or tell anything whatever about 
whose name he draws. He simply puts his hand into the 
vessel and draws out a name at a venture; and whichever 
name he draws settles the question as to the one chosen, 
and no expression beyond that is needed. The name drawn 
out is the one chosen, and that ends the matter. In some 
such way as this, no doubt, Matthias was chosen. In Bible 
times many things were satisfactorily settled by lot that 
could not have been so settled by. voting. When the day of 
general atonement came on among the Jewish people, they 
were to present two kids of the goats to be used on that 
day; and the high priest, arrayed in his priestly garments, 
was to bring the goats before the Lord at the door of the 
tabernacle of the congregation. "And Aaron shall cast lots 
upon the two goats ; one lot for the Lord, and the other lot 
for the scapegoat." (Lev. 16: 8.) Here both goats were 
to be used, and the lot was to determine which was to be 
used for the Lord and which was to be for the scapegoat. 
Also, Joshua was to divide the land of Canaan to the Jew- 
ish people by lot, as you may read in the book of Joshua; 
and the history of it impresses the idea that in this matter 
the Lord directed or determined the lot, and that was an 
end to the matter. 

Brother Seiuell: (1) What was the process of casting lots (Josh. 
18: 6) — that is, how did they do it? (2) Why and when was the tribe 
of Manasseh divided? (Josh. 22: 7.) ' 

(1) There were perhaps a number of different methods 
of casting lots in Bible times, but none of them were ex- 



420 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

plained. Some think it was done by rocks of two differ- 
ent colors, one color to represent one side of the question 
and the other color to represent the other side; that they 
would mix; them up together, and have some one satisfac- 
tory to both parties to draw out upon some prescribed rule. 
In all cases where the Lord's people engaged in it they ex- 
pected the Lord to have a hand in it and to settle the ques- 
tion right. As used by the righteous, it was neither a game 
of chance nor of gambling, but simply a way of having 
things decided by the Lord. It is not supposed that there 
was any fixed or universal method of casting lots. 

(2) It was simply a matter of choice that the tribe of 
Manasseh was divided. The tribes of Reuben and of Gad 
and the half tribe of Manasseh chose to take their part of 
the land of Canaan, on the east side of Jordan. They 
chose this before the crossing of the river into the main 
body of Palestine. These two and a half tribes located 
their families and their herds and flocks before the crossing 
of the Jordan. But the men of war among them went over 
with the rest to help them fight the Canaanites, leaving 
their families till they should return. (See Num. 32.) 

"LOUISVILLE PLAN," THE. 

After the "Louisville Plan" is dead and buried in a State, how long 
should a preacher boast the title and authority of "State evangelist" 
under the plan? 

This comes from Georgia. We are not fully posted as 
to the inner working of the plan. We have noticed, how- 
ever, that where an empty title is all that comes of an office, 
it is clung to with the greater tenacity, like an old militia 
captain, major, colonel, or a district squire that had nothing 
but an empty title and it lasted him through life. It was 
clung to with pride and tenacity and handed down as a her- 
itage of honor to the children. "Talk about Sam Snooks 
'cause his dad's a squire; my dad's a militation major and 
has been to the legismilator, county courtship." We sup- 
pose the empty title of "State evangelist" is treasured as 
the one memento of honor, to be transmitted as an heir- 
loom to their children to give them respectability and stand- 
ing in their courtship and matrimonial alliance. 

As to the authority of the office, the whole move was to 
get things in a condition that power could be exercised. 
Consolidate the churches into a society, and then power 
can be exercised through the society by men who desire 
power, but are lacking in the elements to exert influence. 
Such men are very loath to surrender even the shadow of 
power that seemed once to be within their grasp. They 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 421 

doubtless think, too, it gives weight to flaunt such titles, 
although we are certain it excites the contempt of right- 
thinking men. An effort to exercise authority by such 
persons ought to be resented by the churches as gross im- 
pertinence. It was bad enough to have a man claiming 
superiority over his brethren and equals when there was a 
society to back him. For a man to be claiming it years 
after the society has ceased to exist is bad taste as well as 
an evil in tendency. D. L. 

"LOVEST THOU ME MORE THAN THESE?" 

A Baptist sister and subscriber to the Gospel Advocate 
desires to know the antecedent of these in the query of the 
Savior to Peter : "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more 
than these?" (John 21: 15.) The usual interpretation 
given to it is that these refers to the other apostles and 
disciples who were with him, and attribute his asking such 
a question to Peter's bold declaration: "Though all men 
shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be of- 
fended." But we are sure from the structure of the sen- 
tence, both in English and in Greek, that it refers to the 
fishes and things of like character. "Peter, do you love me 
more than you love these things of the flesh — bread, rai- 
ment, the worldly pursuits?" We think fishes stand as the 
antecedent of these. The Greek more clearly indicates this 
than the English. D. L. 

LYING, IS ALL, DECEPTION? 

Brother Lipscomb : Do you believe that all forms of deception are 
lying? My impression is that just certain forms of deception are 
lying. 

Webster defines: "Lie- — (1) A criminal falsehood; a 
falsehood uttered for the purpose of deception; an inten- 
tional violation of truth. 'It is willful deceit that makes a 
lie. A man may act a lie, as by pointing his finger in a 
wrong direction when a traveler inquires of him his road.' 
(Paley.) (2) A fiction in a ludicrous sense. (3) Any- 
thing which misleads or disappoints, as false doctrine and 
the like." As a verb he defines it: "To utter falsehood 
with an intention to deceive ; to exhibit a false representa- 
tion ; to do or say that which deceives another, when he has 
a right to know the truth, or when morality requires a just 
representation." Certainly, under these definitions, to in- 
tentionally deceive by word or act is to lie. All intentional 
deception is lying. When a man keeps his mouth shut for 
the purpose of deceiving, he lies as much as when he opens 
it to deceive. Intentional deception constitutes the essence 



422 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of the lie, not the motion or nonmotion of the lips or body. 
Sometimes a person can utter words that are not true and 
not lie. He may utter them in a tone or in connection that 
shows he does not mean what he says. There are numbers 
of examples of this in the Bible. One in our lesson recently 
occurs to me. Micaiah, the prophet of God, was appealed 
to to give favorable counsel to Jehoshaphat to go to the bat- 
tle, and he said: "As Jehovah liveth, what Jehovah saith 
unto me, that will I speak." When he came, the king asked : 
"Shall we go to Ramoth-gilead to battle, or shall we for- 
bear?" He answered: "Go up and prosper." There was 
something in his saying it that let the king know he did not 
mean what the words mean. So the king said unto him: 
"How many times shall I adjure thee that thou speak unto 
me nothing but the truth in the name of Jehovah?" And 
he then told him that disaster awaited him if he went up to 
the battle. (See 1 Kings 22: 13-20.) The words were 
not true; but he did not lie, because he uttered the words 
so as not to deceive. The deception constitutes the lie, not 
the form of the words or the movement of the lips. Fre- 
quently people wish to know things that we think they have 
no right or business to know, and we may not wish to tell. 
Then we may properly decline all information ; but to inten- 
tionally deceive is to lie. 

MAJORITIES, DECIDING THINGS BY. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: A few months have passed since 
we called a preacher for the present year by a majority of nearly two 
to one. Those that did not get their choice drew off and organized 
another congregation, and have been having a great many hard say- 
ings. When proof is demanded, they fail to bring it. What would 
be the proper course to pursue? 

In the first place, the congregation should have reasoned 
and conferred and prayed together until they could have 
agreed on the matter of employing a preacher. The idea of 
carrying things by majority in churches is subversive of 
the will of God. Christians are required to be subject one 
to another and to be of one mind and bear one another's 
burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ. Better do without 
a preacher than to divide and break up the peace and hap- 
piness of a congregation. There should never be division 
in a congregation, except upon one principle, and that is, if 
some of the members become factious and contentious and 
will not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, such 
members should be put away as heretics till such time as 
they may learn to submit to the law of Christ. 

The majority of two to one had no right to force some- 
thing upon the minority that they did not wish, and espe- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 423 

cially when the thing done was something the word of God 
does not command to be done, as in the above case. 
Churches should never set out to carry things by majorities, 
but should be agreed in all such matters before they act. 
Then, in the next place, those who withdrew and formed 
a party acted as factionists, and have thus divided the 
church of God — if, indeed, they were really members. They 
have done wrong in separating themselves, and they con- 
tinue wrong by continuing to remain in a faction. . If the 
majority would undo what they have done and appoint a 
prayer meeting and invite the party that has gone off, and 
then would all come together, fasting and praying, they 
might mend the breach and be one again and get along in 
harmony hereafter. E. G. S. 

MALICE AGAINST GOD. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Can any one be saved that bears malice 
against God for not answering his prayer while he was a member of 
a denomination? He prayed to God to spare one that was dear to 
him, but that one died. He says he never prays to God now. If a 
preacher calls on him, he refuses to pray. He will not hold family 
prayers and will not meet on the first day of the week. Can such a 
person be right in the sight of God, and can he be saved? (2) If 
such a person was taken with sectarian baptism and should repent 
and be baptized, do you not think he would be all right, and without 
that can he be saved? 

(1) This person never prayed to God. He directed God 
what to do. God did not obey him, and he now seeks to 
spite God. He proposes to boycott him and not patronize 
him any more. This thing of dictating to God and calling 
it prayer is too common. Prayer always recognizes God's 
right to withhold what is asked. Men very frequently di- 
rect God to do what they wish, and call it prayer. It is the 
opposite of prayer; it is directing God what he must do. 
Men frequently are anxious for God to do what they wish, 
and persuade themselves they are trying to please God. 
when all the time they are insisting on God's doing what 
they wish, so pleasing them. Men frequently deceive them- 
selves on this point in dealing with one another. A man 
thinks and insists he is trying to please his fellow man, 
when all the time he is laboring to get his fellow man to do 
what he desires. There is a wide difference between pleas- 
ing another and getting him to please us. I knew a man 
to sow seed ; and because God did not change his plans and 
send rain to produce a good crop, this man vowed he never 
would sow any of that seed again. Because the Lord did 
not change his order to please him, he boycotted God and 
would not patronize him in that line any more. A great 



424 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

many of us, in what we call prayers, tell God if he does not 
follow our will we will not work with him at all. This 
poor, mistaken soul is refusing to let God rule. He is try- 
ing to boycott and spite him because the Lord did not obey 
his directions. He will fare worse in this effort to spite and 
control the Almighty than he did when God refused to obey 
his orders to heal his dear one. It is a great folly and sin 
to deceive ourselves and imagine we spite God by our rebel- 
lion against him; we only bring eternal ruin on ourselves. 
This poor, mistaken soul ought to be shown his folly — how 
he is working his ruin and not spiting God ; that he is sepa- 
rating himself forever from the one he loved if that one is 
saved, and that he is advertising his folly to God and the 
world. Every true prayer says: "Not my will, but thine, 
be done." Strong terms in such a case are words of love. 

(2) I do not think his baptism has anything to do with 
his condition, nor do I think his condition would be helped 
by any baptism. Persons bring baptism into ridicule by 
claiming for it what God has never attributed to it. 

MAMMON OF UNRIGHTEOUSNESS, THE. 

Please explain Luke 16: 8, 9, which reads: "And the lord com- 
mended the unjust steward, because he had done wisely: for the chil- 
dren of this world are in their generation wiser than the children of 
light. And I say unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mam- 
mon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may receive you into 
everlasting habitations." 

The unjust steward had made such a use of his master's 
goods as to make friends out of his master's debtors. His 
master commended him for his sharpness, not for his dis- 
honesty toward his master. But he had sharply used the 
goods of another for his own profit. The Savior then said 
to the disciples: "Make to yourselves friends of the mam- 
mon of unrighteousness; that, when ye fail, they may re- 
ceive you into everlasting habitations." By "the mammon 
of unrighteousness" is here meant money, property of this 
world. The earth and the fullness thereof belong to the 
Lord. The idea, therefore, is that we, as Christians, must 
so use the money or property that comes into our hands as 
to make God and Christ our friends, so that when we die 
we may be received into everlasting habitations — into 
heaven. Christians should remember that they are not 
their own; that the money or property that comes into 
their hands is not their own; that they and all that they 
have belong unto the Lord and must be used to his honor 
and for the good of his cause. And if they do this, all 
things else being equal, they will go home to heaven when 
done with this life. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 425 

MAMMON, MAKING FRIENDS OF. 

Brother Sew ell: Please explain this passage: "And I say unto you, 
Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness ; that, 
when ye fail, they may receive you into everlasting habitations." 
(Luke 16: 9.) 

Jesus had just finished the parable of the unjust steward 
who had swindled his employer in order to make friends 
that would take care of him when he should lose his stew- 
ardship. Then he gave the charge in the above passage. 
The "mammon of unrighteousness" means money, or 
money's worth, which is evidently the meaning of "un- 
righteous mammon," because the masses of those who have 
much of it use it in an unrighteous way. Christians are 
but stewards of God, since they and all they have belong 
unto the Lord; and all they have and are, money and all, 
should be used to the honor of God ; and Christians who do 
this make God and Christ their friends, and they only can 
receive their faithful followers into everlasting habita- 
tions — into eternal life — and that is promised to all those 
that "use the world as not abusing it." So the meaning is 
that when money and all earthly things fail to help those 
that use their money and all they have to the honor of God, 
the friends they have made in so doing, God and Christ, will 
take them home to glory. 

MARRIAGE AND OTHER THINGS. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Please explain 1 Cor. 7: 7-16, 26-29. (2) 
Explain also 1 Tim. 5: 3-10. What is meant by children and nephews? 
What is meant by if she have washed the saints' feet? Who are the 
saints ? 

(1) The chapter is a discussion of the relations of hus- 
band and wife and of the married and unmarried state in 
the then existing circumstances. Verse 7 says: "I would 
that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath 
his proper gift of God." He was unmarried, and able to 
restrain his lusts. While he wished all were so, he recog- 
nized each had his own gift, or ability, and that some could 
not do as he did ; so each was to accept it as from God and 
live as this gift, or ability, enabled him. Every one was 
not able to restrain his lust, and could not remain unmar- 
ried, as Paul did. Verse 8 : He said to the unmarried and 
widows it was good to be as Paul was — unmarried. Verse 
9 : But if they had not power to restrain their lusts, let 
them marry. It is better to marry than to burn with lust. 
Verse 10: The Lord directs a wife should not separate 
from her husband; but if she could not live with him, let 
her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband ; and 



426 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the husband should so act toward his wife. Verse 12: 
Paul gives some direction that he had not received from 
the Lord. If a brother has an unbelieving wife and she be 
content to dwell with him, he should not leave her. Verse 
13 : The same direction is given to a woman that has an 
unbelieving husband. Verse 14 : For the unbelieving hus- 
band has been sanctified, or set apart, by their marriage 
to the use of the wife, and the unbelieving wife to the use 
of the husband. If they were not so set apart to fidelity 
to each other in the marriage relation, their children would 
be illegitimate. Verse 15 : But if the unbeliever refuses to 
live with the believer, let him go. The believer is not un- 
der bondage in such cases. There is doubt with some as to 
whether this means the believer is released from the mar- 
riage vow and at liberty to marry again, or if it only means 
he is not under obligation to live with the one who departs. 
I am inclined to believe the former is the true position. 
Verse 16 : The believer does not know but he or she may 
be instrumental in converting and saving the unbelieving 
companion. This provision for the separation from the 
unbeliever if he desires indicates strongly that believers 
should not marry unbelievers. Verse 26: Paul thought 
on account of the prevailing persecution it was good for 
every man to be as he was. Verse 27 : But if he was mar- 
ried, let him not leave his wife; if unmarried, let him re- 
main so. Verse 28 : But if he married, he did not sin ; and 
if a virgin married, she did not sin; but marrying would 
bring them trouble in the flesh, and he would like to save 
them from that trouble. Verse 29 : While these rules were 
prudential for their good, life was so short it did not make 
much difference whether they married or not, so they were 
faithful to God. 

(2) 1 Tim. 5:3: He tells there are widows that are real 
widows, poor and without children or grandchildren (the 
Revised Version reads) to care for them. But if any have 
children or grandchildren to care for them, they should do 
it, and thus show piety at home in taking care of their 
mother or grandmother in need, and not let them become 
chargeable to the church. Verse 8 : If any of these chil- 
dren or grandchildren refuse to care for the helpless 
mother or grandmother, he has denied the faith and is 
worse than an unbeliever. Verse 9 : The widow that is to 
be supported by the church is described. The saints are 
the servants of God ; and the widow in her life, among 
other good works, should have washed their feet when they 
needed washing. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 427 

MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb: A brother marries a sister divorced from her 
former husband not for a Bible cause. He did so against the warn- 
ing of the elders of his congregation. The elders then brought the 
case up in church to withdraw from the offending parties, when it 
was alleged in behalf of the sister that she did have a Bible cause 
for her separation from her former husband, although she did not 
allege it in the bill for divorce. I think the congregation should have 
withdrawn from them. It did not; and, therefore, I and a few others 
withdrew our fellowship and are meeting in a house near my home. 
I base my right to do so on Paul's declaration in 1 Cor. 5: 11: "But 
now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is 
called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a 
railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to 
eat." Does not to eat mean to refuse to take the Lord's Supper with 
such a person? Should the congregation, upon this explanation, re- 
tain the brother and sister? 

There is no doubt that the Scriptures forbid the marriage 
of one separated from a husband or wife, save when sep- 
arated for the cause of adultery. We do not see that what 
was done in the suit in court has anything to do with it, 
save that we are to submit to the requirements of civil law 
that do not interfere with our duties to God. Had she al- 
leged in the suit for divorce the violation of the marriage 
obligation, it would have been evidence that her plea before 
the church is sincere ; but it would have been only evidence. 
If this evidence is wanting, and there is other evidence suf- 
ficient to prove that was her reason for separating, the 
failure to produce that evidence does not destroy the other 
evidence in her favor. Suits in courts are more generally 
based on the reasons and causes the lawyers think proper 
and available than on the complaints of the client. If the 
evidence otherwise is sufficient to satisfy the church that 
she separated from him for this cause, the failure to allege 
the cause in the civil suit ought not to set aside this evi- 
dence. But there is so much looseness in the churches on 
the sanctity of the marriage relation, so little regard for 
the Scripture teaching, it is well to guard another point. 
The violation of the marriage vow not only must exist, but 
it must be the cause and ground of separation to justify 
the remarriage of the separated party. Frequently the 
guilt of a husband is known. The crime is condoned by 
the wife. She lives with him knowing his guilt. Finally 
other causes lead to a separation; and then, when she 
wishes to marry again, the infidelity of the husband, which 
did not cause the separation, is made the excuse to justify 
the new marriage. Unless the separation took place on 
account of the lewdness of the companion, it cannot be 
ground for remarriage. Frequently a woman lives with 
a lewd husband who is one with a harlot. She becomes 



428 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

one with him who is one with a harlot — lives this life of 
doubtful virtue, and some other trouble grows up. She 
separates from him for this, and makes his lewdness merely 
the excuse for marrying again. This is not allowable. 
She is in adultery all the time. I wish to emphasize the 
thought that if the lewdness of the former husband was 
the cause of the separation, the failure to allege it in the 
bill for divorcement could not annul the fact nor affect her 
right under it. Not only must she have separated from the 
former husband because of his adultery, to justify her, but 
the present husband must have been satisfied that was the 
cause of it when he married her, else his marriage was in 
intent and at heart adultery. The intention has everything 
to do with obedience to the command of God. It must not 
be an incidental happening to obey God when we go and do 
as we please, but a clear and distinct purpose to be gov- 
erned by the law, to justify it. For a man and woman to 
recklessly rush ahead in marriage, determined to do it, law 
or no law, and after it is done to look around and see if 
they can then find any ground to justify, does not relieve 
them from the intentional guilt of marrying whether there 
be law or no law. 

I do not know that any of these restrictions apply in this 
case, but we do know that frequently men and women get 
in a fever to marry, and determine to do it regardless of 
consequences ; then, after it is over, they begin to hunt up 
something to excuse or justify the marriage. Then the 
church is so ready to say, "They are married now; it is 
best they should remain so," and excuse it. But a marriage 
should never be entered into that cannot, on clear scriptural 
grounds, be justified to the disinterested, especially the eld- 
ers of the church, before it is entered into ; and the special 
duty of elders is to advise the young members as to what 
would or would not be scriptural marriage. 

While this much is true, I am not sure that, even if all 
these requirements were disregarded by a church, there is 
any authority for a member withdrawing from the church. 
We have never found a single admonition or intimation 
that members should withdraw from the church of God. 
The Holy Spirit admonishes the church to withdraw from 
disorderly members. Some of the churches in the days of 
the apostles had very bad people in them. One — the Co- 
rinthian church — had a man who had taken his own step- 
mother for a wife; and the church was "puffed up, and 
have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed 
might be taken from among you." We understand by this 
they were disposed to justify him. Did he recommend that 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 429 

anybody should withdraw from the church on this account? 
Never once. He tells the church to withdraw from him. 
But if the Holy Spirit ever saw a case that justified an in- 
dividual in withdrawing from the church, we have never 
found it. The church — the congregation — is the body of 
Christ ; we are members of that body. To withdraw from 
the church is to withdraw from the body of Christ. 

All the pleas for union, all the condemnation and denun- 
ciation of division in the Scriptures, are directed to the in- 
dividual congregations. The congregation is the body of 
Christ. To divide it is to divide the body of Christ. We 
have a great horror of denominational divisions, and plead 
strongly for denominational unity. Christ nor the Holy 
Spirit ever said a word about these; but we lightly divide 
the church of God, for the unity of which Christ pleaded 
most earnestly. 

The scripture quoted by our brother certainly does not 
mean that he should not eat at the Lord's table with the 
disorderly person, for it immediately adds: "Yet not alto- 
gether with the fornicators of this world." This shows 
that he forbade them doing with the disorderly in the 
church what he permitted them to do with the same class 
out of the church. But they did not eat the Lord's Supper 
without the church. Then it did not apply to the Lord's 
Supper. The facts were: Among the Jews to sit at table 
and eat an ordinary meal with a person was to recognize 
and approve such person as worthy. Hence the charge 
against the Savior: "He eateth with publicans and sin- 
ners." The Jewish brethren contended with Peter, and 
said: "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst 
eat with them." (Acts 11: 3.) Again, Peter, under the 
pressure, refused to eat with his Gentile brethren. Among 
these people, to eat a common meal with a person was a 
recognition of them in a way that the Holy Spirit forbade 
the orderly members to do with the disorderly. I do not 
think one so disorderly should be encouraged to come to the 
Lord's table; but that it would hurt any one if he should 
come is borrowed from sectarianism, and not from the 
Bible. 

Even admitting the case as bad as our brother reports it, 
I do not believe there is ground for his dividing the church 
of God. It is the Christian's duty to protest against wrong 
constantly and earnestly and oppose it within the church. 
When the church, for his constant, earnest protest, with- 
draws from him, it will be time for him to shake the dust 
off his feet against the church, which has deliberately 
adopted another law than God's as its own, and so changed 



430 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the church of God into a synagogue of Satan. So long as 
it is a church of Christ, to withdraw from it is to withdraw 
from Christ. Men sin in nothing more frequently or more 
heinously than in lightly esteeming the church of the living 
God and dividing the body of Christ. D. L. 

MARRIAGE, ARE JESUS AND PAUL IN HARMONY ON? 

Brother Sewell: Please harmonize Matt. 19: 9 with 1 Cor. 7: 11, 
39. It seems to me that Paul contradicts Jesus. 

No two inspired writers of the New Testament are in 
conflict with each other. If at any time we see anything 
that seems to be in conflict with what any other inspired 
man says, we may know at once that the trouble is with us, 
for the Holy Spirit never contradicts himself. Paul does 
not in any way contradict what Christ said. If there were 
really such contradictions, that would at once show that 
one or the other was not inspired, and then we could not tell 
which to believe, and that would soon destroy faith in the 
whole business of inspiration. Christ was viewing mar- 
riage from the loose custom of divorce and remarriage 
among the Jews. Among them, a man could divorce his 
wife for almost any cause and marry another woman. Je- 
sus lets them know that this was granted under the law of 
Moses on account of the hardness of their hearts, but that 
from the beginning it was not so. Then he tells how it re- 
ally is : "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his 
wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, com- 
mitteth adultery : and he that marrieth her when she is put 
away committeth adultery." (Matt. 19: 9.) This pas- 
sage shows that the sin of fornication by either party 
breaks the marriage tie, and it is the only sin that can break 
it while both live. It was always true that the death of ei- 
ther husband or wife would break it, and these two were 
the only things that could break it. When Jesus spoke 
thus, he only mentioned fornication; but, of course, death 
was understood as the other cause that would break the tie. 
If that had been mentioned at all, he would have said the 
same of that also. Paul was considering separation from 
other causes, not from either one of these. There were 
troubles on hand in Paul's time that he called the "present 
distress," on account of which it would be better for people 
not to be married. But while this was true, it was not a 
cause for separation; that did not break the marriage tie. 
Hence, Paul taught them that, if they separated for any 
cause like that, they must not marry any one else, for they 
were still husband and wife. At that time also among the 
heathen sometimes husband or wife would became a Chris- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 431 

tian and the other not. It was then a question whether 
they should separate or not. Paul taught them, if they did, 
to remain unmarried, which shows that did not break the 
marriage bond. The subject of fornication was not up be- 
fore Paul. If it had been, he would have said the same that 
Jesus did. They were viewing things from different stand- 
points, but there is no conflict between them. 

MARRIED TO CHRIST, ARE CHRISTIANS ALREADY? 

Do the Scriptures teach that Christians are already married to 
Christ, or is the marriage to take place at the end of time? 

Marriage is used in Scripture as a figure to denote the 
union of God with the church. It was typified by his union 
with the Jewish people. God said: "Turn, backsliding 
children; . . . for I am married unto you." Many 
scriptures testify this same truth. Paul says : "I have es- 
poused you to one husband, that I may present you as a 
chaste virgin to Christ." (1 Cor. 11: 2.) Espoused does 
not mean necessarily married; but when joined with the 
word husband, it means married. The church certainly 
has as close a union with God as did the Jews. Then the 
church is bearing and nurturing children to God. Certainly 
the church is not bearing children before she is married. 
I know of no single passage of scripture that intimates that 
anything like a marriage is to take place at the resurrection. 

MARRIED, WAS PAUL? 

Brother Lipscomb: I have a question to ask you, and here it is: 
Was the apostle Paul ever a married man or not? Is there any other 
place in the New Testament that says anything about his not being 
married, except what he says in 1 Cor. 7: 8: "I say therefore to the 
unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I?" 
You see that he uses the widows last. Well, he also says that Tim- 
othy is his beloved son. Well, in 2 Cor. 6: 13 he says: "Now for a 
recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children)." Now, if 
Paul had no children, how would he know how to recompense some 
one else like a child — if he never was married or had no children to 
recompense? Then we notice that the whole book of 2 Tim. is a 
charge to Timothy, like any other man would give to a son. Then 
in 2 Tim. 1: 5 he says: "When I call to remembrance the unfeigned 
faith that is in thee, which dwelt first in thy grandmother Lois, and 
thy mother Eunice." So we see that Paul never has given a charge 
to any one else like this one to Timothy, or he never has talked about 
other women like those two. He also says that Timothy has known 
the Holy Scriptures from a child. And then he speaks of his son, 
Onesimus, "whom I have begotten in my bonds: . . . whom I 
have sent again: thou therefore receive him, that is, mine own bow- 
els." (Phile. 1: 10-12.) Also: "If he hath wronged thee, or oweth 
thee aught, put that on mine account." (Verse 18.) So now, Brother 
Lipscomb, this language does sound very much to me like a man that 
has been married, or he has raised two sons by a bondwoman; so if 



432 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

you have any other to prove that he never was married than 1 Cor. 
7 : 8, let me hear from you. 

I do not know that it is a matter of importance whether 
Paul was married or not. Some have thought he may have 
been married in his early life and his wife was not living 
in his older days. The reasons given above do not prove it. 
Timothy was not the son of Paul after the flesh. "Him 
[Timothy] would Paul have to go forth with him; and he 
took and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in 
those parts : for they all knew that his father was a Greek." 
(Acts 16: 3.) Paul was not a Greek, but a Jew, of the 
house of Benjamin, "a Hebrew of the Hebrews.'' (Phil. 
3: 4, 5.) He said he had begotten Onesimus in the gospel 
while Paul was in bonds. He was in bonds three or four 
years. Certainly in that time he did beget a child, and it 
grew up to be a helper to Paul in his work. Read the epis- 
tle to Philemon, and see he was a slave of Philemon, had 
run away from him, had met with Paul, been converted by 
him, and Paul sent him to his master from Rome, where 
Paul had converted him. We are willing to accept the gen- 
eral understanding that Paul and Barnabas "had no wives ;" 
and as there is nothing in it to save or destroy a person, 
just leave it so. 

MARRYING, A CHRISTIAN, ONE NOT A CHRISTIAN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please tell me through the Gospel Advocate 
whether a Christian would be justifiable in marrying a woman that 
was not a Christian; if so, where will I find the scripture for it? 

The New Testament nowhere gives specific directions 
to a Christian man as to whom he should marry. The only 
direction given restricting marriage is that a widow "is at 
liberty to be married to whom she will ; only in the Lord." 
(1 Cor. 7: 39.) I know of no reason why a widow should 
be restricted in the matter more than maidens. Perhaps 
it might be considered better for a man to marry out of 
Christ than for a woman, since he is supposed not to be so 
much under her control as she is under his; but under the 
law of Moses the man was prohibited marrying out of the 
family of God, save when the woman would identify her- 
self with the people of God. The reason given was, lest 
they draw them into idolatry. Solomon violated the law; 
and, despite his wisdom and power, his wives drew him into 
idolatry. Influence is frequently more potent for good or 
evil than authority or power. The sons of Elimelech and 
Naomi, when they went down into the land of Moab, mar- 
ried heathen wives — Ruth and Orpah — and it brought Ruth 
to the service of God. This marriage was when there were 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 433 

none others to marry. The law of Moses is an earthly type 
of the law of Christ. The inference would be that the chil- 
dren of God could not marry out of the family of God. "Be 
ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers : for what 
fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and 
what communion hath light with darkness? and what con- 
cord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that 
believeth with an infidel ? and what agreement hath the tem- 
ple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living 
God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in 
them ; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. 
Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, 
saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing ; and I will 
receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be 
my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty." (2 Cor. 
6: 14-18.) To be yoked with a person is to be so bound to 
them that one will be influenced or controlled by the course 
of the other. I know of no relationship that more effectu- 
ally yokes them together, causes one to be influenced and 
controlled by the other. The spirit and teaching of the Bi- 
ble seem to me against it, and yet there is no direct and spe- 
cific prohibition of it. God recognizes it as a necessity for 
some to marry, in order to live virtuously. If such cannot 
marry Christian wives, they will marry those not Chris- 
tian. Then it is their duty to try to convert them to Christ 
Jesus. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain 2 Cor. 6: 14. Do you think it is 
a sin for a Christian to marry one that is not a Christian? 

This is the verse referred to: "Be not unequally yoked 
with unbelievers: for what fellowship have righteousness 
and iniquity? or what communion hath light with dark- 
ness?" The principle of this passage, as I understand it, 
is involved in your question. Paul says : "A wife is bound 
for so long time as her husband liveth ; but if the husband 
be dead, she is free to be married to whom she will; only 
in the Lord." (1 Cor. 7 : 39.) So a widow that is a Chris- 
tian is limited in a second marriage to a man that is a 
Christian, if she should marry again. I do not suppose 
the law in the case of a young Christian woman differs in 
principle from a widow that is a Christian. If it is wrong 
for a Christian widow to marry a man not a Christian, why 
is it not wrong also for a young Christian woman to marry 
a man not a Christian? So while the passage you name 
was written regarding business compacts with wicked un- 
believers, the principle involved in marriage is very much 
the same. In either case it would be likely to be a hin- 
drance to a Christian in living the Christian life. The 



434 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

next verse to the one you ask about says : "Or what portion 
hath a believer with an unbeliever?" While it may not be 
as great a risk to marry a man that is not a Christian in 
this Bible land as it was in heathen, idolatrous lands, it is 
certainly a great risk in two respects. In the first place, 
it is a risk to undertake to be a faithful Christian with one 
who rejects the gospel ; in the next place, it is a step out of 
harmony with the word of God to do so. 

MARRYING RELATIVES. 

Brother Lipscomb : Do you think it wrong for relatives as near as 
first cousins or second cousins to marry? Is it anywhere forbidden 
in the Scriptures? 

There is no scripture forbidding it. It was encouraged 
among the Jews to keep the families separate and distinct. 
The family of Abraham was superior to the other families, 
and it seemed that intermarriage with them would deterio- 
rate Abraham's family. Some think in latter days that in- 
termarriage deteriorates the family. I think it likely that 
when a weakness, bodily or mental, becomes fixed in a fam- 
ily, marriage between members inheriting the weakness 
will intensify the weakness in the children of the marriage. 
So bodily or mental weakness may be increased by the in- 
termarriage of relatives; but when there is no weakness 
peculiar to the family, I cannot think that God encouraged 
an order that would be detrimental to the children. 

MARRYING AFTER SEPARATION. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If a lady marries and she and her 
husband separate for some other cause than that of fornication, and 
after they separate she becomes a disciple, is she then at liberty to 
marry again? Does her becoming a disciple free her from her first 
marriage? 

According to the language of Christ, such a one is not 
released, but, on the other hand, more firmly bound not to 
marry again while her former husband lives. E. G. S. 

MATT. 18: 18 EXPLAINED. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will one of you be so kind as to 
give us your views of Matt. 18: 18? Now, Christ was talking to his 
apostles, and I understand him to mean this: If you forgive a man, 
that act is ratified in heaven. I acknowledge that to be right. If 
you deliver one to Satan, so do I. Now, if the church was to with- 
draw from one to-day, and he was to give evidence of repentance, 
and we were to receive him back into the fellowship of the church 
next week, would that act be ratified in heaven? Would whatever 
the church does now be acknowledged to be right? 

No act of an apostle was ratified in heaven unless that 
act was in accord with the will of God. Whatever a church 
or an individual Christian does that is in accord with the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 435 

will of God is ratified in heaven. Nay, more; whatever a 
church or Christian does under the direction of God, it is 
God himself doing it. In this case it is God working in his 
servants "to will and to do of his own good pleasure." 
Christ tells his servants if a brother who has sinned turn 
and repent, forgive him. If we forgive him when he does 
this, it is God doing it in and through us — in and through 
the church. The only point of difficulty is, we cannot know 
the heart as God does. We may sometimes forgive when 
the heart is not right. God, who knows the hearts of all, 
does not forgive in this case. D. L. 

MELCHISEDEC. 

Brother Sewell: Please tell me who was "Melchisedec king of Sa- 
lem," spoken of in Gen. 14: 18; also in Heb. 7: 1, "king of Salem, 
priest of the most high God." 

We cannot undertake to say with certainty who Melchise- 
dec was. From what is said of him in Gen. 14 and in Heb. 
7, he seems to have been a man who lived where Abraham 
lived, and who met Abraham when he was returning from 
the slaughter of the kings, and to whom Abraham gave a 
tenth of the spoils he had taken from those he destroyed 
when he rescued his nephew, Lot. He is represented to 
have been a priest unto God; but that is nothing strange, 
for all the patriarchs were priests in the sense that each 
one could make his own offerings to God without the aid of 
a special priest, as was the case under the Jewish law. 
Melchisedec is said to have been without beginning of days 
or end of life and without father or mother. This is under- 
stood to refer to his priesthood, as priests in his day were 
not confined to a certain tribe, as the Jewish priesthood, 
and had no fixed age to begin or to leave off the exercise 
of the priestly office or work. But some understand that 
Melchisedec was a personal representation of Christ which 
was manifested in Abraham. But really our salvation does 
not depend upon understanding who he was. 

Melchisedec was evidently a man that lived in the days 
of Abraham. When certain kings had captured Sodom and 
had carried away much spoil, and had captured Lot and his 
family and goods and were carrying them away, Abraham 
armed his servants and pursued the marauders, overtook 
them, overpowered them, took the spoil from them, and re- 
captured Lot and his family and goods, and was returning. 
"Melchisedec king of Salem brought forth bread and wine : 
and he was the priest of the most high God. And he 
blessed him, and said, Blessed be Abram of the most high 



436 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

God, possessor of heaven and earth : and blessed be the most 
high God, which hath delivered thine enemies into thy 
hand. And he gave him tithes of all." (Gen. 14: 18-20.) 
I see no way to avoid the conclusion that Melchisedec was 
a man, as was Abraham. But Paul says some things in 
Hebrews about him that have led some people to think that 
he was more than a man. He said of him that he was 
"without father, without mother, without descent, having 
neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like 
unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually." (Heb. 
7:3.) If we apply this passage to him simply as a human 
being, it is certainly a puzzling one. We cannot see how a 
mere man could be without either father or mother or with- 
out beginning of days or end of life. But if we understand 
it to have reference to his priesthood, the trouble vanishes. 
In the Jewish priesthood none could be priests but the sons, 
the posterity of Levi, while the high priest must be of the 
posterity of Aaron. The Levites, not of the son of Aaron, 
were to begin their service at the age of thirty and leave 
off that service at fifty. So, in the law of Moses, Levi was 
the father of all the priests, while Aaron was the father of 
the high or special priests. So the Jewish priesthood had 
father and mother in that office, while the common priests 
had beginning of days and ending of life in their priestly 
work. But the patriarchal priesthood was different. They 
did not have to be descendants of a particular father, nor 
did they have to begin and leave off at certain ages. And 
as Melchisedec was a priest of the patriarchal order, he 
was a lifetime priest ; and Christ was made priest after 
his order — that is, was to be a priest without limit. Mel- 
chisedec was king of Salem, which is generally understood 
to have been Jerusalem. He was a Canaanite, as is gener- 
ally understood, and one that had held on to the patriarchal 
form of worship, being a lifetime priest of that order. If 
he was not simply a man, we have no means of ever set- 
tling what sort of being he was. But understanding that 
Paul was discussing the priesthood, and was showing the 
difference between the patriarchal and the Jewish priest- 
hood, and was illustrating that of Christ by the patriarchal, 
all is plain and in full harmony with all that is. said on the 
subject. 

MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH, HOW PERSONS BECOME. 

1. Do faith, repentance, confession, and baptism make a person a 
member of "the church," or does it require some subsequent action to 
make a person a member of "the church?" 

2. Does the expression "kingdom of God" in John 3: 5 mean the 
same thing as the expression "the church?" 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 437 

3. Is there any distinction between the expression "the church" in 
Col. 1: 18 and the same expression in Rom. 16: 5? 

1. There can be no doubt but that faith, repentance, and 
baptism put men into the church, the kingdom of God, the 
body of Christ. All these expressions, when used in a gen- 
eral sense, to signify the whole people of God on earth, the 
entire kingdom of God, mean the same thing. The word 
church may be used to signify only an individual congre- 
gation — a sort of family of Christians meeting together at 
one place to keep the ordinances of God. In this latter 
sense, generally, for convenience' sake and to keep from be- 
ing imposed upon, individual congregations have some for- 
mal method of receiving new members into their number — 
into their family. This is usually done by extending the 
right hand of Christian fellowship to those who come in, 
whether through obedience to the gospel or by commenda- 
tion from other congregations. But this reception of mem- 
bers into individual congregations has nothing in the world 
to do in making them Christians, or members of the body of 
Christ, as such. If they are not already Christians when 
they present themselves for membership in an individual 
congregation, receiving them by the hand of fellowship a 
thousand times would never make them such. The denom- 
inational idea of first becoming Christians and then after- 
wards becoming members of the visible church, or body, 
on earth, is wholly unknown in the oracles of God. The 
very same process that makes a man a Christian makes him 
at the same time a member of the church of God, the body 
of Christ, on earth, and makes him to all intents and pur- 
poses a child of God, and entitles him to all the privileges 
of a Christian. 

Receiving members by the right hand of Christian fel- 
lowship is only an act of Christian courtesy, of Christian 
kindness, by which the new member is made to feel that he 
is welcome, just as an individual Christian family receives 
a brother and makes him feel that he is welcome by greet- 
ing him with a hearty shake of the right hand upon his en- 
trance into their house. And we think it just as proper 
and important that congregations, in receiving new mem- 
bers into their number to sojourn with them for a time to 
serve the Lord with them, should receive them with a hearty 
greeting and shake of the hand as for individual families 
to do the same when their brethren call in to sojourn with 
them for a time. Some congregations refuse to receive new 
members by extending the right hand of Christian fellow- 
ship, because they say there is no authority for it in the 
word of God. No one who understands the word of Go: 



438 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

thinks of claiming it as something that God requires, but 
simply as an act of Christian courtesy to make members 
feel that they are heartily welcome in the congregation, an 
act also of social enjoyment among Christians. We fre- 
quently see congregations become happy and shed tears o" 
joy while extending the right hand to new members. We 
can see no reason why it should not be done. So far as 
authority for the practice is concerned, it is about the same 
as building meetinghouses and such like — something that 
Christians do for their own happiness and well-being and 
to make others feel happy and at home among them. 

2. We have no doubt in the world but that the expres- 
sion kingdom of God, in John 3: 5, has reference to the 
very same institution that Christ referred to when he said : 
"On this rock I will build my church." The word church 
here and the phrase kingdom of God mean the same insti- 
tution. Whenever a man is born of water and of the Spirit, 
as is the case with every one who obeys the gospel of Christ, 
he is at once in the church of God, the kingdom of God, on 
earth, and should then at once attach himself to the most 
convenient congregation and meet regularly with them to 
keep the ordinances, and thus serve the Lord in his own 
appointments. 

3. The words the church, in Romans and Colossians, do 
not mean exactly the same thing. The word church, in 
Rom. 16: 5, has reference simply to one single congrega- 
tion which was meeting at a private house in Rome, while 
the same word in Col. 1 : 18 has reference to all Christians 
on earth as constituting the body of Christ, of which body 
Christ himself is the head. The word church is sometimes 
restricted in its application to a single congregation of 
Christians, at a single place, while in other places the same 
word embraces at once every child of God on earth, as is 
clearly illustrated in the above passages. E. G. S. 

MEMORIAL, MARY'S. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We read in Mark 14: 3: "And 
being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, 
there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spike- 
nard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head." 
Verse 9 reads thus: "Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel 
shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath 
done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." Now, I want to 
know the reason this is neglected. It seems to me that it would be 
good to tell wherever the gospel is preached. 

We suppose that wherever the Bible goes this is told con- 
cerning the woman; at least the Bible tells it. This is all 
we understand the passage to mean. D. L. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 439 

"MESSENGERS," CHURCH "APOSTLES," OR. 

The Christian Courier says "the messengers of the churches," in 
2 Cor. 8: 23, are really apostles of the churches. The Greek word 
translated messengers is apostoloi — the same word that is used to in- 
dicate the apostles of Christ. Is this correct? 

It is correct. Apostolos, or apostoloi (plural), means the 
person or persons sent. Any one sent on any kind of an 
errand is an apostle of him sending. The messengers of 
the churches were sent by the churches and sustained the 
same relation to the churches sending them as the apostles 
sent by Christ sustained to him. The apostles of Christ 
were sent by Christ to deliver a message. They had no 
authority except to deliver the message and perform the 
work Christ sent them to do. They had no authority as 
delegates. They had no right to confer one with another, 
to determine what or how the Lord or Christ should act. 
They had no right to change or modify any decision, sit in 
judgment upon the will or work or order of God. They 
had no right to legislate for God. The apostles or messen- 
gers of the churches had no more right to assemble, confer, 
determine what was best for the churches than the apostles 
had the right to legislate for or determine what or how 
Christ and God should do. The messengers of the churches 
were sent to carry the message and do the specific work the 
church sent them to do, without discretion or power to 
change or otherwise direct the work of the churches. Some 
ridicule the idea of a distinction between a messenger and a 
delegate. They only show their lack of discrimination be- 
tween things that essentially differ, or they purposely ig- 
nore an important distinction to mislead persons as to the 
character of their works. Delegate is to send as one's rep- 
resentative, to empower as an ambassador, to commission, 
to depute ; as, to delegate commissions. It implies the right 
to confer, consider, determine what is best, and, to a certain 
extent, legislate. Delegates may meet and organize a new 
body. That one body will possess the power of all the bod- 
ies sending delegates. A messenger is one who bears a 
message. He has no discretionary power, no right to con- 
fer, devise, or act for the one sending, no more than the 
apostles or messengers of Christ possessed. Messengers 
have no right to meet other messengers and organize a 
body, nor to consider or to determine what is best or to form 
a new organization or to legislate. Scripture messengers 
carried a message or gift, went to do a work and return. 
Their power was limited to this. 

A bearer of dispatches is a messenger ; a minister pleni- 
potentiary is a delegate. A representative or a senator is 



440 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

a delegate; a page or messenger that carries dispatches 
from one member or one legislative body to another is a 
messenger. The electors who meet to elect a president are 
delegates ; the man who carries the vote to Washington is a 
messenger. 

The churches sent messengers to deliver their messages 
and receive others and to bear their gifts. Messengers 
were sent to the churches in Judea to bear the gifts of those 
sending. Messengers were sent with gifts to Paul. Mes- 
sengers were sent by Paul to the churches to urge them to 
make gifts, to tell how it was with him, and to learn how 
the churches did or receive their gifts and return. Paul 
and Barnabas were sent as messengers to the apostles at 
Jerusalem to report the troubles and facts about the cir- 
cumcision question to the apostles, to receive their response 
and bring it back; but no delegate was sent, no delegate 
meeting was held during the apostolic age. 

MILLENNIAL REIGN, WHEN THE? 

Brother Seivell: The "Millennial Dawn" says the prophecies of the 
Bible will be fulfilled, and that Christ will come in the year 1914, and 
then the millennial reign will begin. What do you think about it? 

The Millennial Dawn people do not know a single thing 
more about when the so-called "millennium" will begin than 
I do, and I do not know anything in the world as to the 
time when that wonderful event will begin. That period 
may begin this year or next, or it may be five or five hun- 
dred years. Peter by the Holy Spirit said : "But the day of 
the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens 
shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall 
be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works 
that are therein shall be burned up." (2 Pet. 3: 10.) Je- 
sus indicates no man will know when the end comes, but 
tells us to watch and to be ready. Peter also says regard- 
ing the end of things earthly: "Wherefore, beloved, seeing 
that ye look for these things, give diligence that ye may be 
found in peace, without spot and blameless in his sight." 
(2 Pet. 3: 14.) This is the great matter for us to look 
after. If we will live all the time so as to be ready when 
the end does come, we will enjoy what God has in store for 
his people just as much as if we had known all our lives 
when it would come. On the other hand, believing it will 
come at a certain time will not prepare any one for the 
blessings in store for the righteous. People may believe 
they know the day of the end for a lifetime and be lost 
when it does come, unless they are found faithfully doing 
the Lord's will when it comes. The great matter, there- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 441 

fore, is to be all the time doing the Lord's will and not 
bother ourselves trying to find out what the Lord says we 
cannot know. It is a great worry and loss of time and 
brain power to be trying to find out that which is shut up 
from us and which would be no benefit to us if we did know. 

MISCELLANEOUS QUESTIONS. 

Is there any scripture to exclude a member from the church for an 
offense after he has repented and asked forgiveness and asked to live 
in the church? 

Does 1 Cor. 5 show that the incestuous man had quit his sin, or 
ever did repent, or was excluded from the church at Corinth? 

Can the church of Christ afford to sacrifice the word of God for 
the sake of decency or the good name of the church? 

Is it generally understood among Christian denominations that 
every church is an independent body of Christian believers, with 
Christ as their head and the word of God as the man of their counsel, 
or has any one a right to dictate to God's people save the word of God? 

Does not God look at all sin alike, except the sin against the Holy 
Ghost? 

Salem Baptist Association, that met with the Baptist church at 
Woodbury, Cannon County, Tenn., September 16, 1892, excluded one 
of her sister churches from her fellowship for retaining a member 
that had been guilty of an offense. He acknowledged and repented 
of the sin, and asked the church to forgive him and to let him live in 
the church. 

Undoubtedly the admonitions of Scripture all teach that 
a man is to be forgiven on repentance. In Matt. 18 : 15-17 
the Savior says : "If thy brother shall trespass against thee, 
go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if 
he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he 
will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, 
that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may 
be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it 
unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let 
him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican." This 
begins as an offense against an individual ; but it comes to 
the church, and shows plainly that if he hears the church, 
or repents of his course, that must end the matter. In- 
deed, the whole direction shows that the end to be reached 
is the repentance of the sinner. The moment that is 
reached the discipline ends. If the personal remonstrance 
of the injured one brings repentance, that ends the matter. 
If the intervention of the two or three taken with the in- 
jured man produces repentance, that ends the matter. If, 
when it comes before the church, he repents, that ends it. 
It shows, too, that the same course governs the course of 
the individual injured and the church. If one member 
suffers, the whole body suffers with it. In verses 21, 22 
Peter says, "Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, 



442 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and I forgive him ? till seven times ? Jesus saith unto him, 
I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy 
times seven" — showing that whenever repentance takes 
place, forgiveness must follow immediately. If it is the 
duty of one Christian, and especially the injured one, to 
forgive, it is equally the duty of every member and the 
whole church to forgive. Repentance is the end of disci- 
pline. When the sinner repents, he must be regarded as 
though he had not sinned. There can be nothing against 
him. 

This passage is followed up by an illustration of the stew- 
ard that owed his lord ten thousand talents; and when he 
had nothing to pay, he fell down and worshiped him, and 
said: "Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all." 
Then the lord of this servant was moved with compassion, 
and loosed him and forgave him the debt. That the servant 
afterwards sinned and forfeited the forgiveness of his lord 
militates nothing against the fact that he did forgive him 
when he asked for mercy. 

But if the sinner is not forgiven when he repents and 
asks forgiveness, when is he to be forgiven? If the re- 
pentance does not bring forgiveness to-day, what will make 
it better to-morrow or next week or next year? If for- 
giveness is not conditioned on repentance and confession, 
on what is it conditioned? If conditioned on repentance 
and confession, it is a sin to withhold forgiveness when the 
conditions are complied with. 

In 1 Cor. 5: 1, 2 the man who had his father's wife 
clearly had not repented. "It is reported commonly that 
there is fornication among you, . . . that one should 
have his father's wife. And ye are puffed up, and have 
not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might 
be taken away from among you." Not only the sinner had 
not repented, but the church had not regretted and mourned 
over it ; but the inference is that it rather sustained, or at 
least excused, him in the wickedness. Paul says: "In the 
name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered to- 
gether, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruc- 
tion of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of 
the Lord Jesus." Certainly if others had not regarded it 
as sin, he had not. Then when he did repent, Paul admon- 
ished them: "So that contrariwise ye ought rather to for- 
give him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should 
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow." (2 Cor. 2: 7.) 

Those who insist on withdrawing from a member, 
whether he repents or not, do it, we believe, to satisfy pub- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 443 

lie sentiment — to make the impression on the world that 
they are just and condemn such crimes. It means they 
are merely acting for effect on the world. Remember that 
what the church does in accordance with the will of Christ, 
Christ does. Then it would represent Christ as a mere ac- 
tor before men. He forgives when the man repents, but he 
pretends not to do it until he is justified before the world. 
The idea is a slander on Christ, and introduces the most 
dangerous rule into the church that ever influenced it — 
that is, to act to secure the approval of the world. If and 
when he repents, forgive him, is heaven's law to the chil- 
dren of God, individually and collectively. 

We hardly know what is generally understood among 
the Christian denominations. The Methodists and Presby- 
terians hold that their general assemblies and conferences 
can supervise the actions of the congregations. Their 
creeds or disciplines clearly show this. The Baptists, in 
theory, deny that there is any higher authority than the 
single congregation of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that no 
general organization has any power to coerce or condemn 
or overrule the action of the church ; but in practice they 
contradict that theory and do exactly like the Methodists 
and Presbyterians. The Baptist association exercises all 
the authority that a Methodist conference or Presbyterian 
synod can. They can do nothing more than declare non- 
fellowship with a church that violates their rules. This 
the Baptist association does. The association rejects from 
the fellowship every church that fellowships the condemned 
church. Owing to the manner of deeding the property, 
a Baptist church can hold its property despite the associa- 
tion, while the title of a Methodist or Presbyterian church 
inheres in the conference or synod, we believe. But so far 
as the question of retaining in or rejecting from the fel- 
lowship is concerned, the Baptist association exercises as 
much power as does the Methodist or Presbyterian assem- 
bly. They do it in contradiction of their own principles 
and of what they claim to be the teachings of the Bible. 
The Bible recognizes no assembly or organization above 
the church of Christ. Anything above this is an invention 
of man. It is a usurpation of the rights of the congrega- 
tion. In primitive times the church sought the counsel and 
instruction of the apostles and inspired teachers that it 
might understand the law and act upon it. But the church 
acted. It may be right for the church to seek the counsel 
of those skilled in the Bible teaching, that htey may act ac- 
cording to it; but no power can overrule the action of the 
church of Christ. D. L. 



444 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

MONEY CHANGERS, WHAT WERE THEY DOING? 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 21: 12. What were the 
money changers doing? Why were they driven out? 

Here is the verse: "And Jesus went into the temple of 
God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the 
temple, and overthrew the tables of the money changers, 
and the seats of them that sold doves." Many of the Jews 
at that time lived far away from Jerusalem and had to come 
there to make all their offerings. To such as these it was 
too far to carry their offerings, and they could dispose of 
their offerings and buy other offerings in their place when 
they got to Jerusalem from those dealers, who were Jews. 
Also all the Jews from twenty years old and upward had 
to pay a half shekel each, which was to be used in the ex- 
penses of the temple. This half shekel was a Jewish coin, 
and the Jews that came from far, where Jewish money was 
not in circulation, had to change their money with money 
changers at Jerusalem for Jewish coin in order to pay the 
half shekel tax. These money changers were there for 
these purposes, and were carrying on their business in the 
temple, which was a profanation of that holy place ; and on 
that account Jesus drove them out. He did this more than 
once. He also accused them of changing the temple from a 
house of prayer into a den of thieves. The Jewish people 
had at that time become very lax in the temple service, and 
the Savior gave them a terrible rebuke on this occasion for 
their departures from the true use of the temple. 

"MOON," THE, AND "TWELVE STARS." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: It is written in Rev. 12: 1: "And 
there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the 
sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of 
twelve stars." Please tell us what you understand by the moon un- 
der her feet and the crown of twelve stars. 

The language is so highly figurative that we do not un- 
derstand it. The time doubtless will come when it will be 
very plain ; but the time has not yet come for us to under- 
stand it. We are not even willing to venture an opinion 
about its meaning. When we cannot see our way clearly, 
we are not in the habit of venturing. E. G. S. 

MORMON, BOOK OF, AND ISA. 29. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Isa. 29: 4, 11, 12. This is be- 
ing used all over this country by the "Josephite branch of the Mor- 
mon Church" to prove the false claim of the "Book of Mormon." 

These passages do not come within five hundred miles or 
years of the Mormon Church of either branch. What 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 445 

would be thought of one who in a trial for. a few dollars 
would introduce a witness who never spoke a word that any 
one could say referred to the case or even heard of the case? 
There is not a man living that can say with the least shadow 
of truth that these or any other scriptures have any refer- 
ence to the Mormon Bible, since this is not mentioned by 
name nor an intelligent reference in the Bible. A man that 
would propose such testimony in a money case would be 
regarded a lunatic. One who depends on unfulfilled proph- 
ecy to prove facts connected with revealed things depends 
on uncertain props. Who could take the unfulfilled proph- 
ecy and beforehand interpret as it was fulfilled and ex- 
plained by the Holy Spirit? The prophet seems to be re- 
citing curses that God will inflict or see inflicted on the re- 
bellious nations of these times. He gives a statement that 
God shall overrule all, then overthrow Assyria (chapters 
8-12), then Babylon (chapters 13, 14), Moab (chapters 
15, 16), Damascus (chapter 17), Egypt (chapters 19, 20), 
and Tyre (chapter 23). Then he gives the sentence on his 
own people — first Israel and then Judah. These last were 
to be brought low, but not destroyed. Chapter 29 is de- 
voted to the evils that came upon Jerusalem, the chief seat, 
under the name of "Ariel," where David dwelt. A number 
of curses are pronounced here: "I will camp against thee 
round about, and will lay siege against thee with a mount, 
and I will raise forts against thee. And thou shalt be 
brought down, and shalt speak out of the ground, and thy 
speech shall be low out of the dust, and thy voice shall be, 
as of one that hath a familiar spirit, out of the ground, and 
thy speech shall whisper out of the dust. Moreover the 
multitude of thy strangers shall be like small dust, and the 
multitude of the terrible ones shall be as chaff that passeth 
away: yea, it shall be at an instant suddenly." (Isa. 29: 
3-5.) Read the whole chapter. It and the following chap- 
ters are repetitions of curses upon Jerusalem and Judea 
for their sins, with promises of deliverance when they shall 
repent. Israel was to be brought low and speak as from 
the ground because of her sins. There is not the most re- 
mote reference to anything else than this in this and some 
of the following chapters. There is no reference to Mor- 
monism. 

MORMONS ON MARK 16: 17, 18. 

Brother Sewell: Some of the readers of the Gospel Advocate are 
closely associated with a people who call themselves "The Church of 
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints." Said readers are not able to 
answer all the arguments of said people, and would like to have some 
scriptures explained. They quote from the commission as given in 



446 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Mark 16: 17, 18; Luke 10: 19; and others of like import. Please 
write an article giving the strongest arguments of this people and 
explain them. 

The first passage referred to in the above is this: "And 
these signs shall accompany them that believe : in my name 
shall they cast out demons; they shall speak with new 
tongues ; they shall take up serpents, and if they drink any 
deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them; they shall lay 
hands on the sick, and they shall recover." The second pas- 
sage is of the same character, only shorter : "Behold, I have 
given you authority to tread upon serpents and scorpions, 
and over all the power of the enemy : and nothing shall in 
any wise hurt you." These and some other passages of 
like import are used by the Mormons, now calling them- 
selves "Latter-Day Saints," to support their claim of abil- 
ity to perform miracles at the present time. But they fail 
to notice the fact that these passages were applied to men 
that were able to perform miracles even during the lifetime 
of the Savior. The passage in Mark was addressed to the 
apostles, who from the time they were called and sent out 
in their first commission were empowered to work miracles 
— to heal the sick, raise the dead, and cast out demons. 
(See Matt. 10: 8.) The passage in Luke was addressed to 
the seventy when they were sent out. These passages, 
therefore, were not addressed to all disciples and were not 
intended to apply to any for all time. Neither these pas- 
sages nor any others like them were ever applied to the 
disciples as a whole, and to so apply them now is a mis- 
application of the word of the Lord. 

During the time of writing the New Testament miracles 
were common among Christians ; but we are plainly taught 
that miracles were to cease. Paul tells us plainly that they 
were to be done away: "Love never faileth: but whether 
there be prophecies, they shall be done away ; whether there 
be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, 
it shall be done away." (1 Cor. 13: 8.) The principle of 
love will never cease in the church; but the time was to 
come when there would be no more prophets, nor any that 
could speak with tongues. This does not mean that proph- 
ecies already uttered would cease to be fulfilled, but that 
the inspiration that enabled men to foretell future events 
would cease, would be done away, and that the power to 
speak with tongues, to speak in tongues they did not under- 
stand, had never learned, would cease to be given ; also 
that knowledge, the power to know things without learning 
them — that is, by the power of inspiration — would cease. 
This passage includes in its broad sense and principles all 
the miraculous powers that were given in the first age of 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 447 

the church. It includes the very powers named in the pas- 
sages above quoted and all the miraculous powers that were 
given in revealing and establishing the church of God on 
earth. These powers were given to help men do what they 
could not have done without that power, as the New Testa- 
ment had not then been completed. 

Paul tells us about these things in the following passage : 
"He that descended is the same also that ascended far 
above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he 
gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, 
evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the per- 
fecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto 
the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain 
unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the 
Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of 
the stature of the fullness of Christ: that we may be no 
longer children, tossed to and fro and carried about with 
every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, in craftiness, 
after the wiles of error; but speaking truth in love, may 
grow up in all things into him, who is the head, even 
Christ." (Eph. 4: 10-15.) In this passage Paul explains 
the whole matter ; tells what these miraculous powers were 
given for, which was the upbuilding and edification of the 
church. He also plainly indicates to us that these miracu- 
lous powers were not intended to be permanent, but only 
to continue till certain ends should be accomplished — till 
all should come into the unity of the faith; till the whole 
matter of revelation pertaining to the church of God, the 
New Testament in all its parts, should be finished, and 
a full standard of everything pertaining to the work and 
worship of the church should be furnished, which was done 
in giving the New Testament. When this divine volume 
was completed, there was no longer a necessity for the 
miraculous powers, because it contained all the information 
that was in the spiritual gifts that were so very necessary 
before the New Testament was given. Hence, when that 
wonderful production of the Spirit, the full presentation of 
the new and everlasting covenant, was completed, miracu- 
lous powers were taken away and have not been possessed 
any more. 

The claim, therefore, of working miracles since these 
powers were taken away is without a particle of foundation 
in the word of God and utterly unknown among men, and 
the claim of such power is always brought to grief when 
put to the test. It is a fact that the passages the Mormons 
quote to prove that they possess these powers yet are among 
the very things the Holy Spirit, through Paul, said should 



448 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

be done away. They were given and exercised just as 
promised in the first age of the church, when the gifts of 
healing, of prophecy, of tongues, and all such gifts, were 
given to the church for the accomplishment of these needed 
ends; but when these ends were filled, those miraculous 
powers were ended by him that gave them; for, with the 
New Testament in hand, we repeat that there was and is 
no further use for them. Those, therefore, that accept and 
use the word of God in its proper division and application 
make no claim of any such power. They learn from their 
divine Standard that all the promised gifts came, filled their 
mission, and have been taken away, and that the New Tes- 
tament gives all the light these miraculous powers ever 
gave. It is only those who are living in the dark shadows 
of error, and who are building up theories and parties in 
religion, that are laying any claim to such things. But it 
is certain that such people will never be able to bring back 
those miraculous gifts. 

MOSES, THE LAW OF. 

1. What evidence have we that obedience to the law of Moses se- 
cured eternal salvation? I heard a preacher say that it secured a 
timely or temporal salvation only. 

2. What evidence is furnished that the Gentiles could be circum- 
cised, obey the law of Moses, and be saved as well as the Hebrews? 

1. The law of Moses was temporal and temporary. It per- 
tains to things present in this world, was of short duration, 
was added because of transgression until the people were 
educated and prepared for the coming of Christ. Paul 
(Acts 13: 38, 39) says: "Be it known unto you therefore, 
men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto 
you the forgiveness of sins : and by him all that believe are 
justified from all things, from which ye could not be justi- 
fied by the law of Moses." 'Tor if the blood of bulls and 
of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh : how much more shall 
the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered 
himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause 
he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of 
death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were 
under the first testament, they which are called might re- 
ceive the promise of eternal inheritance." (Heb. 9 : 13-15.) 
I understand this to teach that the redemption of the trans- 
gressions that were under the first covenant was completed 
only when Christ was crucified, or his blood shed. The 
typical blood cleansed and sanctified the flesh for a time. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 449 

The sins were postponed, or atoned for, for a year at a 
time, and were finally washed away by the blood of Christ. 
The same lesson is taught in Rom. 3 : 25. "For what the 
law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God 
sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for 
sin, condemned sin in the flesh." (Rom. 8: 3.) "Which 
was a figure for the time then present, in which were of- 
fered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him 
that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the con- 
science." (Heb. 9: 9.) 

I think it clear that the sacrifices and services of the 
Mosaic law were typical. The salvation was temporary 
and typical, and was perfected only when the types and 
shadows gave place to the perfect and true sacrifice of Je- 
sus Christ, the righteous. This shows no sins — past, pres- 
ent, or future — can be forgiven without the shedding and 
washing of the blood of Christ. The blood was shed by 
Christ; the washing in that blood must be done by man. 
Man must come to the blood-sealed appointments and, in 
walking in these, wash himself in the blood of the Son of 
God. 

2. "When a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep 
the passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, 
and then let. him come near and keep it; and he shall be as 
one that is born in the land : for no uncircumcised person 
shall eat thereof. One law shall be to him that is home- 
born, and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you." 
(Ex. 12: 48, 49.) All through the Old Testament Scrip- 
tures down to the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit de- 
scended, proselytes were found attending upon the service 
of God on equal footing with the Jews. D. L. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 5: 17: "Think not that I 
am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to de- 
stroy, but to fulfill." A young Methodist brother quoted this to show 
that Moses' law is still binding on us. 

The Methodist brother has not studied to show himself 
approved, rightly dividing the word of truth. If he had, 
he would have learned that when Christ had fulfilled the 
law in his personal life, he took it out of the way, nailing it 
to his cross, as is plainly taught in Col. 2. Paul argues, 
again, that if there had been a law given that could have 
given life, then that would have been sufficient; but he 
shows the insufficiency of the lav/ — that even while the law 
existed, God counted all in sin, whether Jews or Gentiles, 
and that, therefore, the law was wholly insufficient for the 
redemption of the world. Among other things, he says: 
"Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto 

15 



450 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that 
faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For 
ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus." 
The law was, but is not now, our (the Jews') schoolmaster, 
and has not been since Christ died and nailed it to his cross. 
The Gentiles never were under it; only the Jews were un- 
der it; and Paul says of himself and other Jews: "Christ 
hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a 
curse for us." Hence, since Christ died, the law is no 
longer binding upon anybody. The law was not intended 
to last. Hence, the apostle says again of the law : "Where- 
fore then serveth the law ? It was added because of trans- 
gressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise 
was made." These passages and arguments of Paul are 
found in Gal. 3, and they show beyond a doubt that Christ 
is the end of the law ; that he fulfilled it and took it out of 
the way; and that, therefore, no one can be saved now by 
obeying the law. The only hope of the world now as through 
Christ, and our only hope through him is by obedience to 
the gospel through life. 

MOTHERS, SHALL THEY TEACH IN THE HOME? 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it the duty of the wife to read a chapter 
and pray with her children, where the father cannot or neglects it? 
Is it her duty to go on with the worship and the father present? 
Please show us our duty. The father is a Christian, but cannot form 
words to express a prayer in public on account of very little school- 
ing. 

There is nothing that can justify a mother to fail to teach 
her children the Bible or to pray with and for them. The 
most sacred duty of life is that women shall bear and train 
children for the Lord. It is equally the father's duty with 
the mother's to do this ; but if one is incompetent and neg- 
ligent, it adds so much to the obligation of the other to do 
the work. God's requirement of the Jews to teach his 
will to their children (Deut. 6: 6-9) is the model of God's 
requirement to teach the children his will. "And these 
words, which I command thee this day, shall be upon thy 
heart; and thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy chil- 
dren, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thy house, 
and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest 
down, and when thou risest up. And thou shalt bind them 
for a sign upon thy hand, and they shall be for frontlets 
between thine eyes. And thou shalt write them upon the 
doorposts of thy house, and upon thy gates." This is the 
model of instructing the children in the law sealed with the 
blood of bulls and goats. With this model before us to 
warn and admonish us of our duty, God gives us his law 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 451 

sealed with the blood of his own Son. He says : "Children, 
obey your parents in the Lord : for this is right. Honor thy 
father and mother (which is the first commandment with 
promise), that it may be well with thee, and thou mayest 
live long on the earth. And, ye fathers, provoke not your 
children to wrath : but nurture them in the chastening and 
admonition of the Lord." (Eph. 6: 1-4.) To "nurture 
them in the chastening and admonition of the Lord" is to 
train them to submit to his law and realize that his pun- 
ishment is for our good. They were to be trained, too, to 
listen, to hear the appointments and admonitions of the 
Lord. This demands a rigid study of and adherence to the 
word of God that the parents should require of the children. 
God commands the fathers to do this, but it is addressed to 
them as the head of the family. What they do through 
others they do themselves. The father may or must do this 
through the mother, the friend, the teachers he provides 
for the children. But the feeling of accountability to God 
must be upon his heart so he cannot rest content unless the 
teaching and training is first done to himself and to the 
children as the first and important concern of life. The 
father, as the head and the controller of the family, is first 
held accountable to God ; then the mother and those inter- 
ested in the family and under whose influence the children 
are to be taught and trained. 

MUSIC, DAVID, AND INSTRUMENTAL. 

Please give me a scriptural answer to the following: "I have found 
David the son of Jesse, a man after mine own heart." (Acts 13: 22; 
see also 1 Sam. 13: 14.) David made many musical instruments to 
praise the Lord with (1 Chron. 23: 5), for which he was not con- 
demned. When Solomon dedicated the house of the Lord, the Levites 
lifted up their voices; and when' the musical instruments sounded in 
harmony, the glory of the Lord filled the house. (2 Chron. 3: 13, 14.) 
Yet they were not condemned. Why, then, do the people condemn the 
use of the organ in the church? 

Let us try that logic and see where it leads us. David 
was a man after God's heart. David danced before the 
Lord as a means of glorifying him, and said: "Let them 
praise his name in the dance." (Ps. 149: 3.) "Praise 
him with the timbrel and dance." (Ps. 150: 4.) Now, 
why can we not have the young people join in a dance at 
the Lord's-day service on the Lord's day? It would draw 
big crowds of young and old to have a regular hugging 
round dance every Sunday. As a drawing influence, it 
would beat the organ a hundredfold. 

Again, David had a multiplicity of wives; yet he was a 
man after God's own heart. Why not all of us turn Mor- 



452 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

mon, and, as one wife grows old, add a new and young one 
to our family? 

Again, David made burnt offerings of cattle and sheep 
and goats and birds ; he burned incense ; yet he was a man 
after God's own heart. Why not we do the same? This 
reasoning would restore the whole Jewish law, with all the 
additions and perversions, with its ordinances and bloody 
sacrifices. Christ came to deliver his people from these 
services — the bondage of the law. He "took it out of the 
way, nailing it to his cross." Then it is not in force ; none 
of the order, the ritual, the service, is in force. Jesus 
Christ became our priest. "The priesthood being changed, 
there is made of necessity a change also of the law." (Heb. 
7: 12.) The Spirit also says that a man is "not crowned, 
except he strive lawfully." 

Now, Christ, in introducing his law, left the organ and 
all instrumental music, the dance, the burnt offerings and 
sacrifices, out of his service and condemned polygamy. 
When he and the apostles left these out of the service, who 
dare bring them in? Instrumental music was not only left 
out, but, notwithstanding both Jew and pagan worshipers 
had been accustomed to it, the leaving it out was regarded 
such an emphatic condemnation of it that none dared to 
bring it into the worship for over six hundred years. Then 
it was introduced into the Eastern churches, but not into 
the Western churches till 1200. Then the pope and the 
political ruler used their combined authority to bring it in. 

The same reasoning and the same authority that justify 
the use of the organ will justify the dance (I repeat, it 
would be worth a dozen organs to draw a crowd, and is just 
as acceptable to God as the organ), the burnt offerings, the 
incense, and will justify polygamy. They were all prac- 
ticed, not only by David, a man of God's own heart, but by 
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and thousands of others whose 
hearts were right before God. They practiced them be- 
cause God provided for them or tolerated them under those 
old dispensations ; but he does not do it in the Christian dis- 
pensation, but declares whoever adds to the appointments 
of God shall be accursed. We are forbidden both by oft- 
repeated commandment and many terrible examples to do 
anything in the worship of God that he has not commanded. 

A. Campbell always refused to speak where the organ 
was used. Even when invited to preach in a Presbyterian 
church in New Orleans, he requested the organ to be silent 
on the occasion. He maintained it was sensuous, wholly 
appealing to the fleshly feelings, and so was suited to the 
fleshly institution of Judaism, but was ill suited and wholly 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 453 

antagonistic to the spiritual nature of the kingdom of 
Christ. 

Elder Isaac Errett, while assistant editor of the Har- 
binger, wrote the following : 

"The highest artistic skill has somehow been associated 
with the lowest spiritual culture, and has been far more 
promotive of sensuous than of spiritual attractions. The 
genius of this reformatory movement, like that of previous 
reformations, is not favorable to choir singing and instru- 
mental music. Its sympathies are with the bewildered and 
sin-oppressed masses, and it wants 'music for the millions.' 
Its original power will be largely lost when the stirring 
melodies of its early days shall have been supplanted by 
stately artistic performances. As the church of Christ is 
the common home of his people — 'barbarian, Scythian, 
bond, and free' — who are 'all one in Christ Jesus,' and as 
singing is part of worship in which the great 'mass of Chris- 
tians can personally practice, no choir singing or instru- 
mental music should ever be allowed to interfere for a mo- 
ment with this privilege and right of the saints. If such 
appliances can be made to assist rather than to hinder this 
great object of uniting the whole congregation in the wor- 
ship, the most serious objection to them is removed. The 
religion of Christ demands our best offerings. Let us cul- 
tivate a musical taste and musical talent in our churches. 
Let us have attractive singing in our families and in our 
public assemblies. Let us learn hymns, chants, choruses, 
anthems, in which we may suitably utter the high praises 
of our God and win the hearts of men to his altar." 

These are good and solid reasons why instrumental music 
was admissible in the church of God in the Jewish dispen- 
sation, but are not under the Christian. As Elder Errett 
prophesied, the original power and point of our plea to re- 
turn to the apostolic ground is largely lost when the stir- 
ring melodies of its early days have been supplanted by 
artistic performances of either choir or organ. Why any 
can fail to see that the introduction into the worship of 
either the choir or the organ violates the order of God and 
destroys his worship is strange. 

MUSIC, CONTROVERSY OVER INSTRUMENTAL, IN 

1878. 

We have said but little on this subject during the contro- 
versy that has raged for some years. Although not speak- 
ing much concerning it, we have not regarded it with in- 
difference. We do not think we have any prejudices upon 
the subject for or against. We possibly at one time did. 



454 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

We are sure we have got entirely clear of them. One rea- 
son we have said but little has been from the consideration 
that we wished to weigh the matter well. 

We have no musical taste or talent. Some have thought 
this disqualified us to judge of this matter. We thought 
possibly it might for a time. On mature reflection, we 
have come to the conclusion that this deficiency enables us 
to judge the more dispassionately in the matter. Persons 
passionately fond of music are liable to let their fondness 
for music bias their judgment. We have no fondness for 
music ; it is not offensive to us. This is a question to be de- 
termined by the Scriptures properly interpreted and ap- 
plied, not by taste. 

We have reasoned on it in this way : The taste for music 
is a sensuous feeling. It is in itself neither good nor bad. 
Music, vocal or instrumental, is the development of a talent 
in man that is neither good nor bad. The taste for music, 
gratified by a "concert of sweet sounds," is neither good nor 
bad. This talent and its development may be made to ad- 
minister and the taste be the recipient of either good or 
bad influences, as they are consecrated to conveying truth 
or error, virtuous or vicious influences. Vocal music, by 
its charms, warms the imagination and opens the heart to 
the easy reception of sentiments and feelings associated 
with the music. Instrumental music, it would seem to us, 
possesses the same power for good or bad as it is made the 
vehicle for conveying good or evil, religious or irreligious 
impressions. With these premises left to our own reason, 
we would certainly conclude that music, vocal or instru- 
mental, should be consecrated to the conveying of good im- 
pressions, to molding the character for good and not for 
evil; that it should be used to impress religious truths; 
hence that the use of instrumental music in religious wor- 
ship is proper and right. 

This, to our mind, is a logical conclusion ; and we confess 
we have tried to conform our convictions to this conclu- 
sion. We could easily do it did we feel free to form our 
judgment from these premises, from what seems reasonable 
to us. But we are so often in the Bible reminded, "Trust 
in the Lord with thine heart ; and lean not upon thine own 
understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he 
shall direct thy paths" (Prov. 3:5), that we are unwilling 
to trust our judgment in a matter so simple as this seems 
to be. 

We go to the Old Testament and find there that instru- 
mental music was admitted in the Jewish service of praise. 
If it was acceptable to them, why not here? This has 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 455 

weight with us, because the Old Testament examples are 
for our instruction. But we find no allusion to its observ- 
ance under the teachings of the Savior or the apostles. 
Why was it not practiced by them? The instruments used 
in Jewish worship — not only in Jewish, but in the worship 
of all Eastern nations — were small, easily carried around 
from place to place, and were, indeed, chiefly used when 
the performers themselves were in motion, carrying the 
instruments in their hands. They were simple in their na- 
ture, easily performed upon, and, with the musical tastes 
of the Jewish and Eastern nations, almost every one could 
perform on some of the instruments. Besides, they were 
cheap and inexpensive, so were in the reach of all. But 
there is no intimation of their ever having been used by 
the Savior, his followers, or the church for hundreds of 
years after his death. How shall this be explained under 
all the circumstances? That the Jewish converts clung 
tenaciously to all their customs, especially their religious 
rites, until directly forbidden, is very clear from the New 
Testament. We can account for it in but one way. The 
Savior himself dropped it out, and so tutored his apostles 
that they followed his example. There is our first and most 
serious difficulty. 

In pondering upon these things, we come to study upon 
its introduction and use among the Jews. It was used 
among them for hundreds of years. The temple band was 
certainly an imposing body of musicians, and to those pos- 
sessing musical taste their performances must have been 
impressive. Yet it is not clear that instrumental music 
was introduced among the Jews by direction of God. It 
was among the heathen nations. The invention of musical 
instruments was not among the children of God. But it 
was adopted and approved by the prophets and inspired 
teachers of Judaism ; was used under the sanction of Moses, 
the lawgiver, himself, and so stands approved of God. 
Other means of worship were introduced — the incense of- 
fering, the sacrifice of animals. The requirements of wor- 
ship were of a character to attract the attention of the sen- 
suous, fleshly feelings of man. They were calculated to 
appeal strongly to the imagination, to strike with awe. 
The religion of Judaism was intended to impress the wor- 
shipers with the idea of might, power, and grandeur; to 
excite feelings of awe and fear in the worshiper; and to 
govern man through these rather than through love. 
Hence, Paul calls them servants or slaves under Moses, 
while under Christ he says we are children in our Father's 
house. The forms and instrumentalities of worship were 



456 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

calculated to appeal to the feelings through which he pro- 
posed to govern man. The incense offering, the bleeding 
sacrifice consuming upon the altar, the great overpower- 
ing bands of musical performers in the temple choir, some- 
times over four thousand strong — all had a tendency to ex- 
cite this feeling of awe and impress the worshiper with the 
sense of the power, majesty, and might of the great Jeho- 
vah. 

There was in the Jewish institution but little direct ap- 
peal to the conscience — the heart, the spiritual faculties — of 
man. God's sympathy for man in his sin and wickedness 
was but slightly revealed. He was a God of might to the 
Jew; to the Christian he is a God of tender love and pure 
sympathy for his weak and erring children. Man was not 
invited under Judaism to communion and fellowship with 
God. Constant, fervent prayer, as a source of union, fel- 
lowship, and communion with God, was not enforced. 
Prayer was but lightly taught in the Old Testament. 

Under the Christian dispensation, while the truth is not 
lost sight of that he is a God of might and power, he espe- 
cially reveals himself as a God of love, sympathy, and kind- 
ness; he appeals to man's love in turn. The heart — con- 
science, spirit — of man is more directly addressed. The 
means for approaching man — for reaching him, molding 
and developing his feelings and character — correspond 
to the manifestations of God and the faculties or elements 
of man's nature that are addressed and that are to be 
aroused and developed. Man is no longer a slave, held at a 
respectful distance from heaven's august and awe-inspiring 
majesty ; but he is the child of an all-powerful, but loving 
and kind, Father. The means of approach to him are 
adapted to this relation. His love is touched ; he is drawn 
by tender, gentle cords of a loving sympathy — a lamblike 
offering for man's own sins. He is prompted to act from 
love. His heart is touched, is purified; his conscience is 
appealed to ; his true spiritual nature is exalted as above all 
the sensuous and sensual elements in man ; and his spirit is 
directly addressed. The difference between the two insti- 
tutions is fitly shown in the lightnings and thunder and 
dark clouds and awe-inspiring surroundings of tempest- 
ridden Sinai, and the gentle, meek, suffering, loving con- 
descension of divine love on Mount Calvary. The charac- 
ter of the mode of service to God changes with this differ- 
ence in the character of the two institutions. 

Faith, trust, confidence, and love of God as a Father 
takes the place of servile fear as the moving principle. A 
walk with God, a copying of his life, an imbibing of his 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 457 

spirit, a constant desire to walk in fellowship and commun- 
ion with God, is the spirit of the child of God. Constant, 
earnest, humble, but trustful, prayer to God is enjoined. 
The ordinances are such as speak of his condescension, 
kindness, and love to man, and inspire a gentle, humble, 
loving spirit in turn — a burial with him in baptism, a 
communion with him in the memorials of the broken body 
and shed blood of Him who loved us, singing with grace and 
making melody in our hearts to God. All the means he 
uses are to reach the heart ; all the worship he accepts comes 
from the heart, the spirit. He is a spirit, and those who 
worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. Only 
heart worship will be accepted by him. 

All those appointed means of approach that appealed to 
the imagination — the sensuous, carnal perceptions of man — 
gave place to others that speak to the heart. The incense 
offering passed away, gave place to that pure incense from 
the heart ; the bleeding, smoking sacrifice gave place to that 
which touches the heart, and which, unless the heart re- 
sponds, is sin. The instrumental music, which does not, 
cannot speak to the heart, but only to the sensuous imagi- 
nation, gave place to the song of praise that comes from 
grace in the heart and makes heart melody to the honor of 
God. 

Instrumental music passed away with the other appeals 
to the merely sensuous and imaginative in men. Instru- 
mental music, as a part of divine worship, was associated 
with bleeding beasts as sacrifices and the incense offering. 
There is just as much reason and authority for the revival 
of either of these as for the revival of instrumental music 
in the worship. They are both more directly the commands 
of God, and neither of them have been more clearly or defi- 
nitely excluded from his worship than instrumental music. 
Those who adopt one cannot reject the other. 

Those who introduce instrumental music give up heart 
worship of Christ for the formalism of Judaism. It is an- 
other indication of that which was the trouble in apostolic 
times and has been since — the tendency to go back to the 
forms, the ritualism, sensuousness, of Judaism. It shows 
how difficult, even now, it is to appreciate and cling to that 
which is purely spiritual in its nature. 

It was not accidental or incidental or unintentional or an 
oversight that Christ and the apostles ignored and left out 
of their worship instrumental music. They did it ad- 
visedly, because the nature of the religion was contrary to 
such worship. When Christ and the apostles left it out, 



458 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

who dare replace it in their worship? The incense, as a 
sweet-smelling savor, affects the imagination of some per- 
sons just as powerfully as does instrumental music affect 
others. D. L. 

NAME, WAS THE "NEW," "BAPTIST?" 

Brother Sew ell: A Baptist preacher said here that the new name 
in Isa. 62: 2 was Baptist. He said the Lord was the first one to call 
John a Baptist. (Matt. 11: 12.) Is not the mention of John by Mat- 
thew (3: 1) the first time he was called a Baptist? (2) Who gave 
him the name Baptist — the Lord or some other man? 

(1) There was nothing said in the Old Testament as to 
what the new name spoken of in Isa. 62 should be, and it 
is mere assumption to say it was to be Baptist, meaning 
the Baptist Church. There is no such institution known to 
the Bible as the Baptist Church, nor till hundreds of years 
after the days of the apostles. Hence there is not the 
shadow of authority in the Bible for anything called the 
Baptist Church. The word Baptist, as connected with 
John, was no part of his proper name. That word is never 
heard in connection with John till he began preaching and 
baptizing people. He was named John by his father and 
mother, and was not known by any other name till he be- 
gan preaching. Then he was called John the Baptist. But 
the word Baptist was not a church name in any sense. 
The Greek word from which it comes is baptistees, and 
simply means a baptizer. Thayer's New Testament Greek 
and English Lexicon of the New Testament renders it into 
English thus : "A baptizer ; one who administers the rite of 
baptism." John was the first man that ever administered 
the rite of baptism by divine authority. Hence he was 
called John the baptizer. And since the word baptize 
means to immerse, it means in plain English John the im- 
merser; and the Baptists render it that way in their ver- 
sion called the "Bible Union Revision." So the Baptists 
themselves do not regard the word as a church name, but 
simply as expressing the work that he did — that he im- 
mersed people, nothing more. If that preacher can get no 
better authority for the name Baptist than that, then he 
may as well drop it ; for there is nothing more in that word 
as connected with John in the New Testament than that he 
baptized, immersed, people. So it would be perfectly literal 
to render Matt. 3 : 1 thus : "In those days came John the 
immerser," etc. And the same is true in all the fourteen 
occurrences of the expression John the immerser. So that 
is all there is to it. But the New Testament shows that the 
new name foretold is the name Christian. (See Acts 11: 
26.) 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 459 

(2) In every passage where we have the expression John 
the Baptist it is given by inspiration, and in every case it 
means John the immerser, but never has any reference to a 
Baptist Church. 

NATIONALITIES, DIFFERENCES OVER RELIGION. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Should the deacons of a congregation, when 
passing the bread and wine, offer it to colored brethren when such 
meet with the brethren? (2) Is a negro, when "born again," still a 
negro in a Bible sense? If so, what meaneth Gal. 3 : 27, 28; Col. 3 : 11? 

(1) He certainly should. I see them do this often; but 
they generally, as far as I have observed, wait on the white 
members first and then upon the colored member or mem- 
bers that may be present. I have never known them to re- 
fuse the bread and wine to colored members, and it cer- 
tainly ought not to be refused them. Colored members 
have as much right to be Christians and to partake of the 
Lord's Supper as any other members. 

(2) He is just the same as to race and color after becom- 
ing a Christian as before, and so are white members. But 
so far as Christian privileges are concerned, there is nei- 
ther male nor female, neither Greek nor Jew, but all are 
one in Christ. In social life distinctions are made with 
most nationalities on account of differences of language, 
habits, customs, and such like causes. Hence, English- 
speaking people associate together because they under- 
stand each other better, and so with Greeks and Germans. 
These distinctions are especially true between the white 
and colored races. Each color prefers its own color in so- 
cial life, and these lines are so definitely fixed that they can- 
not be broken. Nor does Christianity require that they 
should be broken in social life. But Christian privileges 
are the same to all colors and nationalities. E. G. S. 

NATURAL MAN, THE. 

Please explain 1 Cor. 2: 14, which reads: "But the natural man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolish- 
ness unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually- 
discerned. " 

The natural man either represents an uninspired man in 
contrast with one that is, or a man seeking to find out di- 
vine things outside of the word of God, which alone reveals 
divine things, and we would not positively say which. But 
in either case the teaching plainly is that no man can ar- 
rive at a knowledge of salvation except by the word of God, 
which has come to us through inspired men. 



460 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

We suppose the natural man of this passage to be an un- 
inspired man, and that the things of the Spirit which such 
a one could not receive were the miraculous powers of the 
Spirit, which were given to certain ones for the upbuilding 
of the church. An uninspired man could not obtain or 
know anything definite about these miraculous powers. 
When God gave these powers to any, he gave them the 
power to discern and use them, while others could not. 

E. G. S. 

Brother Lipscomb : In 1 Cor. 2: 14 we read: "But the natural man 
receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness 
unto him : neither can he know them, because they are spiritually dis- 
cerned." In the Bible lesson at Berea on a recent Sunday it devel- 
oped that as to who the natural man is and who the spiritual man is, 
three theories are held — viz.: (1) The natural man is the unconverted 
man; the spiritual man is the Christian. (2) Man is a dual being; 
the natural man and the spiritual man are the same individual. (3) 
The natural man is the uninspired Christian; the spiritual man is the 
inspired man. I write these theories that you may understand fully 
our trouble. I was requested to submit the question to you, and will 
thank you very much for a scriptural answer. 

The context seems to me plainly to teach that man, by his 
natural faculties, without revelation, could not learn the 
will of God. One man cannot know what is in the mind of 
another man unless this latter tells it. So a man cannot 
by his natural faculties or reason know the mind or will of 
God unless God tells it. Then he shows how God tells or 
makes known his will or mind to men. The Spirit of God 
that knows the things of God was transferred to the apos- 
tles and made known to them God's will, and the apostles 
spoke it to the people. The natural man, then, would be 
the man who has never heard the will of God. He cannot 
know it save by hearing it as spoken by the apostles, to 
whom God revealed it. It means about the same as 1 Cor. 
1:21: "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by 
wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of 
preaching to save them that believe." Man, by his natural 
faculties or reason, cannot know God or his will. He must 
learn it by hearing the things revealed to the apostles or by 
preaching. The spiritual man was the man knowing the 
will of God. The natural man was without this knowl- 
edge. He could not know it save by revelation. When 
revealed, it is addressed to the spiritual, not the merely ani- 
mal, man. As in Rom. 7 and 8, it is presented that the an- 
imal, or fleshly, man of itself cannot be subject to the law 
of God, but the spiritual part in man must control. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 461 

"NEW AND OLD" THINGS. 

A brother asks an explanation of the following passage : 
"Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is 
instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man 
that is a householder, which bringeth forth out of his treas- 
ure things new and old." (Matt. 13: 52.) The house- 
holder has things on hand, both new and old. He always 
has some things on hand which he saves up for a long time 
for special occasions, which are always ready, being always 
on hand. Then he has other things which he gets for the 
occasion, and in this way has a variety, so as to suit all oc- 
casions and circumstances, and in this way is always ready 
to entertain his guests as their position and circumstances 
may require. Such is the case with every scribe or teacher 
instructed unto (for) the kingdom of heaven. Any one 
instructed in the things pertaining to the kingdom of God 
has always a general fund of knowledge on hand, and is 
ever ready to get up such things from the word of God as 
are necessary for special occasions ; and in this way the 
teacher who thoroughly studies the word of God is always 
ready to teach the very things that are appropriate and 
needful on any and every occasion, and knows what is need- 
ful on any occasion and to any individual — as, for example, 
some teachers of Christianity never study but one part of 
the great lesson God has revealed to us. Some study only 
first principles, to teach aliens how to become Christians 
and to oppose errors on conversion, but never study the 
practical lessons given for the training and edification of 
Christians, and, when caught up before congregations of 
members of the church altogether, have nothing on hand 
for them suited to their case. Teachers of the religion of 
Jesus ought to study as thoroughly as possible every practi- 
cal subject pertaining thereto, so as to be ever ready to 
teach aliens anything that pertains to them and members 
of the church all things needful for their growth in the 
divine life; and so of everything else involving responsi- 
bility to God. E. G. S. 

OFFENDING HAND OR FOOT, THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: What must we do in order to obey 
Matt. 18: 8, which reads as follows: "Wherefore if thy hand or thy 
foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better 
for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two 
hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire?" 

The true reading of the passage is: "Wherefore if thy 
right hand or thy foot cause thee to offend," etc. The Com- 
mon Version of this passage does not give the meaning of 



462 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the original at all, and is calculated to puzzle the mind 
rather than to enlighten. It would be difficult for us to un- 
derstand how a right hand or a foot could offend us, but 
not quite so difficult to understand how a right hand or foot 
might cause us to offend or do wrong. The different mem- 
bers of the body that act in compliance with the desires or 
lusts of the mind as influenced by the passions are here 
placed to represent the lusts or desires or passions them- 
selves. If the hand takes something that does not belong 
to the individual taking it, the hand in such case only obeys 
the dictate or impulse of the mind. The hand is the me- 
dium through which the impulses and wrong desires act or 
manifest themselves, and on this account these different 
members of the body are personified as if they were respon- 
sible in the wrong. But the language is figurative in this 
regard, assigning responsibility to those members of the 
body when they are only the servants of our minds and 
impulses. 

The figure is a very forcible one, and is well calculated to 
make a deep impression. Suppose, for instance, that a man 
has an unconquerable propensity to lay his hand upon 
things that do not belong to him — to steal things, in other 
words. That propensity must be overcome somehow, no 
matter how strongly developed, if a man would be saved. 
And if he cannot overcome it otherwise, he had better cut 
off his right hand literally than go on gratifying the desire 
or impulse till he loses his soul. If in such case he should 
literally cut off a right hand, always from that time for- 
ward when the same impulse should arise, the absence of 
the right hand through which he had gratified such desire 
would so forcibly remind him of the wrong that he could 
readily overcome that desire or impulse, and in this way 
enable him to save his soul, which would pay him ten thou- 
sand times for the loss of his hand. With proper efforts, 
the flesh, with its affections and lusts, can be overcome with- 
out maiming the body ; but should such an extreme case oc- 
cur that the Christian cannot otherwise overcome the flesh, 
he had better lose any member of the body than lose his 
soul. This principle applies to any member of the body as 
well as the hand. E. G. S. 

"OFFICE," MEANING OF THE WORD IN THE NEW 
TESTAMENT. 

We often speak of the officers of the church. It is a ques- 
tion of grave importance whether we speak scripturally 
or whether we are using the language of Ashdod when 
we use such expressions. The word office signifies a posi- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 463 

tion of authority into which men are placed, in which posi- 
tion they have the right to do certain things which they had 
no right or authority to do outside of that position. This is 
the sense in which the word office is used in the govern- 
ments of this world. 

When a man has been lawfully elected and installed into 
the office of county court clerk, he has the authority to is- 
sue marriage licenses and a great many other things of like 
character which he had no right whatever to do without 
being placed in that position. Such is the meaning of office 
in worldly governments. When a man has been duly in- 
stalled into the office of governor, he then has the right to 
perform all the functions of that office. He has the right 
to call the legislature together, to veto bills passed, to exer- 
cise the pardoning power of the State, to commission cer- 
tain other officers, and such like things, none of which could 
he do outside of that office, no matter how well he might be 
qualified. But is the word office used in this sense in the 
church of God? Are any of the members of any congre- 
gation in the New Testament so addressed? If so, then it 
is right. But if there be no such thing in the word of God, 
then the use of this word is wrong as now found among 
those claiming to be Christians. The word office, it is true, 
is used a few times as applied to Christians in our Com- 
mon Version ; and we will, therefore, briefly examine these 
passages. 

The first place is Rom. 11 : 13, where Paul says : "For I 
speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the 
Gentiles, I magnify mine office." Here Paul is made in our 
Common Version to speak of himself as an officer, as hav- 
ing an office. But in the new version, instead of magnify 
mine office, it is rendered glorify my ministry. The word 
office in this passage in the Common Version is from the 
Greek word diakonia, which is found about thirty-three 
times in the Greek Testament, and but this one single time 
rendered office. The word elsewhere is rendered ministry, 
ministration, service, but nowhere else rendered office; and 
it is clear that in this passage it does not mean office in the 
modern acceptation of that word. The word ministry 
means ivork, service. Ministering to the saints means the 
work of aiding them, or relieving their necessities. 

The word is rendered thus in 1 Cor. 16 : 15, where it is 
said of the household of Stephanas that they addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints. The very fact that 
this Greek word occurs thirty-three times and is but one 
single time rendered office creates a doubt about its cor- 
rectness, and is in itself an argument in favor of the cor- 



464 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

rectness of the new version in rendering it ministry. And, 
besides, the passage itself shows that Paul uses the word to 
signify the work he was doing in teaching the Gentiles, and 
not the dignity or authority of an office as such. There 
is, therefore, no authority in the Greek for this word office 
in this passage, and still less for the idea usually attached 
to the word office. Paul was only speaking of work as an 
apostle to the Gentiles, and that he was faithful in doing 
that work. 

The word apostle means one sent. God through Christ 
sent Paul to be a teacher of the Gentiles, and he was faith- 
fully doing that work. When Paul spoke as the Spirit gave 
him utterance, his words were with authority; but the au- 
thority of his words was because they came from God, and 
not because they came from Paul. The authority was from 
God, but the work of presenting these words to the people 
was the work or ministry of Paul. So Paul was only a 
worker, a servant, a minister, not an officer. 

Again, Paul says in Rom. 12 : 4 : "For as we have many 
members in one body, and all members have not the same 
office." In this passage the word office is from- the Greek 
word praxis, which literally means work or deed. The 
word is found but six times in the Greek Testament, once 
rendered works, four times rendered deed or deeds, and 
once rendered office. It has reference to what men do, not 
to dignity of position. And, besides, if this proves that 
any member of the church is an officer, it proves that all 
are, and this proves too much for the common idea. The 
true meaning is that all the members have a work to do — 
not all the same work, but still all have a work to do in the 
church of God. There is nothing, therefore, in this passage 
to justify the popular use of the word office. 

The next passage is in 1 Tim. 3: 1, in which it is said: 
"If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good 
work." In this passage there is no word in the Greek for 
the word office. It is manufactured by the translators out 
of the word episcopee, from which the word bishop comes. 
This word is found four times in the Greek Testament. 
It is found first in Luke 19 : 44. This is where Christ was 
foretelling the destruction of Jerusalem ; and in telling the 
inhabitants what should befall them, he adds: "Because 
thou knewest not the time of thy visitation." The same 
word is here rendered visitation that in 1 Tim. 3 : 1 is ren- 
dered office or bishop. In this passage in Luke there is 
not a shadow of authority for the word office, and so the 
translators did not give it. The same Greek word in Acts 
1, when speaking of Judas, is rendered bishopric. In 1 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 465 

Pet. 2 : 12 it is rendered visitation again. These are all the 
occurrences of the word in the Greek Testament. The 
meaning of the word is inspection, oversight, visitation. 
There is, therefore, no authority in the Greek for the word 
office in 1 Tim. 3 : 1. 

We may render the word oversight, and thus give a lit- 
eral rendering of the passage, and thus relieve it entirely 
of the word office, which has no right to be in the passage. 
The oversight of a congregation is a work to be done, but not 
an office to be enjoyed. Hence, Peter required that the eld- 
ers shall take the oversight — that is, attend to the work of 
overseeing the congregation. If any man desires the over- 
seership, he desires a good work. This is the idea that 
Paul expressed in the Greek of the passage in 1 Tim. 3:1. 
The word office is also again found in this chapter, where 
Paul says in regard to deacons : "And let these also first be 
proved ; then let them use the office of a deacon, being found 
blameless." (Verse 10.) Here, again, there is no word in 
the Greek for the word office. It was also manufactured by 
the translators out of the word diakoneoo, from which the 
word deacon is rendered. The word office originated in the 
minds of the translators, growing out of their religious 
education, and not out of the word diakoneoo. This word 
means to minister, to serve, to wait, or attend to, or upon. 
Hence the passage might be literally rendered: "Then let 
them minister, or serve." Paul did not mean to impress 
Timothy with the idea that he was to make officers out of 
those members, but workers. So far as we can learn about 
deacons, they were members of the church, appointed to 
do certain work in the church, to serve in certain capacities, 
not to be exalted to the position or dignity of an office in 
the usual acceptation of that word. Again, in the same 
chapter we have the expression: "They that have used the 
office of a deacon well," etc. Neither is there any word in 
the Greek for the word office in this passage. It is just like 
the passage we have last examined, and literally means: 
"They that have ministered or served well," etc. 

These are the passages that apply the word office to 
Christians in the New Testament, and we have seen that 
not in a single one of them is the word office used in the 
common acceptation of that term. The word just simply 
indicates a work, or service, and not an elevated position of 
authority in the church. All the members are officers in 
the sense of workers, but none are officers in the sense of 
having authority conferred upon them by ordination. 

We do not in this propose to discuss the matter of ordi- 
nation or appointment, but of one thing we are quite cer- 



466 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tain, and that is that ordination is not a process of in- 
stalling men into office. It is only an appointment of cer- 
tain men who are competent to do certain things, to do cer- 
tain kinds of work; and this ordination or appointment is 
not to impart to the persons appointed any more authority 
or right to do that work than they had before, but it cer- 
tainly does increase their obligation and responsibility to 
do the work. 

All Christians, by virtue of their relationship as such, 
are kings and priests to God, and as such have the right to 
do any work in the church that they are competent to do. 
Any brother who is competent has the right as such to 
preach the gospel, baptize believers, attend to the table in 
the Lord's Supper, to reprove, teach, exhort, or admonish 
his brethren, or anything that the word of the Lord re- 
quires to be done; and all the ordinations that can ever be 
performed can give no more right to do these things than 
Christians already have. To insure the doing of these 
things by those who are competent, appointment or ordina- 
tion is necessary; and if all would eradicate from their 
minds all idea of office or of being installed into an office by 
ordination, then we think the matter and process of ordi- 
nation might soon be understood and controversy upon it 
cease. There are no classes or orders in the church of God. 
All authority in religion comes through the word of God. 
A bishop, no matter how much he has been ordained, has 
no arbitrary power to rule in the church. He must rule by 
the word of God — must teach and enforce that word so 
that it shall be the ruling power. We hope the brethren 
will study these matters till all shall understand the truth. 

E. G. S. 

OFFICE OF TAX RECEIVER, CAN A CHRISTIAN FILL 
THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: A brother buys a piece of land, 
for which he pays one part cash and gives his note for the remainder 
of the purchase money. He is a hard-working, industrious man; but 
subsequent to this purchase, and after he has added greatly to the 
place by improvements, such as a dwelling and other necessary build- 
ings, he becomes so much embarrassed pecuniarily that he finds him- 
self unable to pay the balance due on his place unless he can raise 
an income independent of the product of his farm. His friends see 
his need and nominate and elect him to the office of tax receiver, with 
a salary of five hundred dollars per annum. This will enable him to 
secure his home; otherwise he must forfeit what he has already paid, 
and, with an increased family, he must start again from beneath the 
level. Now, the question is: Can he accept and discharge the du- 
ties of the office without a surrender of his Christian principles? If 
not, why not? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 467 

We have time and again presented our reasons for be- 
lieving that a Christian cannot engage in political affairs. 
We shall not now repeat them. If they are valid, and the 
writer believes them to be so, the simple reason the man 
cannot accept the office is, he would sell his principles and 
convictions of right for five hundred dollars. The princi- 
ples of Christ are Christ himself. To sell the principles 
is to betray the author of those principles — is to betray 
Christ. Judas did this for thirty pieces of silver. The 
sum may differ ; the principle is the same whenever a man 
determines to sell his convictions of right for gain. Of 
course the intentional guilt is absent when a person does 
not think it wrong to hold office. Whenever a man fore- 
goes his convictions of right for the sake of gain, whenever 
he stills his convictions of right for the sake of money, he 
does precisely the same thing Judas did. Judas may have 
needed that money greatly; we do not know; we just know 
he persuaded himself he might betray the right for the 
sake of gain. Every one who does this does what Judas 
did. How many are there who repeat this crime! It is 
bad to be without a home; certainly it is; but it is worse 
to be without a conscience void of offense toward God and 
men. If our hearts condemn us, God is greater than our 
hearts and will much rather condemn us. 

The brother did wrong in going in debt. Another wrong 
will not right this wrong. Nor will the office pay the debt; 
you mark this. The office will create additional demands 
sufficient to take all it makes. Let us strive to keep our 
hearts pure and our lives void of offense. A home in the 
better land is worth a thousand homes here. D. L. 

OLD TESTAMENT, TEACHING THE. 

Brother Lipscomb : We have a brother in our congregation who 
objects to the lessons in the Old Testament as contained in the Sun- 
day-school quarterlies. He says it is all right to teach the Old Tes- 
tament to the church, but not to children or alien sinners, as the Old 
Testament was done away with, and hence it is a waste of time to 
teach it to children. Kindly answer his objection and give the prin- 
cipal reason why it should be taught to children and sinners. 

It is singular that a man should claim to believe the New 
Testament and take such a position in reference to the Old 
Testament. It is such a simple and self-evident principle 
that it is difficult to choose a reply. Every time the word 
scriptures is mentioned in the Bible it refers to the Old 
Testament; the other part, the New Testament, was not 
then written. If I counted right, in the concordance there 
are fifty-four references to the Scriptures in the New Testa- 
ment, and every time the Old Testament is referred to. 



468 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Most usually they are spoken to and of the unbeliever to help 
him to believe in Christ. The chief aim of the Old Testa- 
ment Scriptures was to foretell the coming, work, and char- 
acter of Jesus, that sinners by the fulfillment might be 
taught to believe in Jesus as the Christ. Jesus quoted the 
Old Testament to sinners. In Matt. 21 : 42 he quotes Isa. 
28: 16 and shows it refers to Jesus, and in refusing him 
they called down on them the wrath of God. This passage 
is frequently quoted in the New Testament to show the 
wrath that rests on sinners for not believing the gospel. 
Another similar reference to the Scriptures, not understood 
by sinners, is Matt. 22: 29. In Luke 24: 27, Jesus "inter- 
preted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning 
himself." "And they said one to another, Was not our 
heart burning within us, while he spake to us in the way, 
while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Verse 32.) "Then 
opened he their mind, that they might understand the scrip- 
tures." (Verse 45.) "Ye search the scriptures, because 
ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and these are 
they which bear witness of me." (John 5: 39.) This was 
said to disbelievers. Paul "reasoned with them [the unbe- 
lieving] from the scriptures." (Acts 17: 2.) The Be- 
reans "were more noble, . . . examining the scriptures 
daily." (Verse 11.) Philip preached the scriptures to the 
eunuch. (Acts 8: 35.) The scriptures taught to Timo- 
thy when a child made him a Christian when grown. Read 
Acts 18: 24-28; Rom. 1: 2; 15: 4; 16: 26; 1 Cor. 15: 3; 2 
Tim. 3: 16; James 2: 23; 4: 5; Matt. 21: 42; 22: 29; 26 : 
54, 56 ; etc. When a man objects to studying any part of 
the Bible, gently and kindly tell him, in the name of the 
crucified Redeemer, he is sinning against God. He needs to 
know the first principles of the gospel of Christ. The chief 
evidence of the truth of the New Testament was to study 
it in connection with the Old and see how it fulfilled the Old. 
To cut children and sinners off from the Old is to deprive 
them of a strong evidence of the truth of the Bible. Read 
the last chapter of Peter's second letter and see how he 
wrote that the prophets as well as the writings of the apos- 
tles would remind them that God created and preserves all 
things, that the world was overflowed with water, that the 
heavens and the earth will be destroyed and good will come 
to the faithful. One great trouble with people to-day is 
that they are not familiar with the Old Testament or its 
fulfillment in the New, and they doubt the truth of the Bi- 
ble. No man can understand the New Testament that is 
not familiar with the Old. No man can understand the let- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 469 

ter to the Hebrews unless he understands God's dealings 
with the Jews through Moses. Many other passages are 
the same. Jesus and the apostles relied upon the Old Tes- 
tament teachings to produce faith in Christ. This is no 
saying the Old Testament as a system of laws is not done 
away to give place to the New. The New grows out of the 
Old. 

OLIVES, HIS FEET ON THE MOUNT OF. 

Brother Sewell: "And his feet shall stand in that day upon the 
mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem on the east, and the mount 
of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof toward the east and toward 
the west, and there shall be a very great valley; and half of the moun- 
tain shall remove toward the north, and half of it toward the south." 
(Zech. 14: 4.) This speaking of the mountain east of Jerusalem 
seems to be speaking of a mountain literally. Please give some ex- 
planation in regard to it. 

Likely no man can tell certainly what the passage means. 
It was given to the Jewish people near the time of the re- 
turn of those people from the Babylonian captivity, and the 
context of the verse you give speaks of another and terrible 
destruction of Jerusalem, in which many nations were to 
have a part. The chances are that the verse you give is a 
highly figurative allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem 
by the Romans, which occurred about the year 70 or 71 of 
the Christian era. But I know of no means of ascertaining 
with any degree of certainty the application of the passage. 
Some commentators give it as their opinion that the passage 
has reference to that awful catastrophe and the dispersion 
of the Jewish nation. There are many prophecies ex- 
pressed in highly figurative language that men may not be 
able to understand and explain. But we all have reason to 
be thankful that all things that pertain to our individual 
duties in the matter of our salvation are so plain. No man 
needs to be lost on account of any obscurity in these mat- 
ters. The New Testament is plain on these things, and all 
who will to do so can understand and embrace them, and 
thus be sure of their salvation. The Lord has been won- 
drously kind to man on these matters, making them plain 
and adapting them to our needs, and thus placing salvation 
fully in man's reach. Knowing the wonderful wisdom and 
power that gave the Bible, we need not wonder that there 
are things in the Bible that are beyond our comprehension. 
But the gospel and the conditions of salvation are all plain 
enough to reach all who are willing to be saved in the Lord's 
way. 



470 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

"ORDAINED TO ETERNAL LIFE," WHO? 

Brother Sewell: In Acts 13: 48, how many were ordained to eter- 
nal life? And were the Gentiles ordained, or who? In Acts 9: 29, 
what does gainsaying mean? 

All were ordained to eternal life that were disposed to 
receive and obey the truth. One reading of the passage is : 
"And as many as were disposed for eternal life believed." 
(Living Oracles.) This indicates that the ordaining was 
not something done in the decrees of God, but by the peo- 
ple in inclining themselves to eternal life by a willingness to 
obey the gospel of Christ and serve the Lord through its di- 
vine requisitions. The whole matter is explained by the 
commission as recorded by Mark : "Go ye into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." This is God's way of ordaining men to 
eternal life. To gainsay "is to contradict, to oppose in 
words, to deny or declare not to be true what another says." 
(Webster.) 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Give me your views through your 
excellent paper on Acts 13: 48, which reads: "When the Gentiles 
heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord : and as 
many as were ordained to eternal life believed." 

The word ordained in this passage is the word that oc- 
casions all the trouble, and this trouble all arises from an 
improper construction placed upon this word and others 
of a kindred character. Men have originated the idea that 
God has foreordained and predestinated everything that 
comes to pass; that he has foreordained certain individ- 
uals to be saved and certain others to be lost; that only 
those who have been specially ordained of God to be saved 
can believe; and, therefore, when this passage says, "as 
many as were ordained to eternal life believed," those who 
believe the Calvinistic doctrine of decrees and foreordina- 
tion of God find it very easy with the present translation 
of the passage to apply it that way, and thus make the im- 
pression that this passage without doubt teaches the above 
doctrine of decrees. The word rendered ordained in the 
passage does not signify something done by God, but by 
the individuals. The same word is rendered determined 
in Acts 15: 2, thus: "When therefore Paul and Barnabas 
had no small dissension and disputation with them, they 
determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of 
them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and eld- 
ers about this question." In this case the brethren at An- 
tioch determined (decided) to send Paul and others to Je- 
rusalem to have the question of circumcision settled. Now, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 471 

all we have to do in order to understand the passage in 
Acts 13 is to render the word thus : "And as many as were 
determined for eternal life believed." It is thus rendered 
in "Living Oracles." The passage just means that as many 
as were decided or inclined to eternal life believed. The 
word only refers to the decision or determination of the 
people, not to the decrees of God. Those that were willing 
to favorably consider the matter of eternal life as prom- 
ised through the gospel to the servants of God believed, 
while others would not favorably consider the matter and 
did not believe. The whole matter of the determination to 
receive or reject the gospel is upon the people; it is their 
responsibility. God has prepared salvation for man, and 
offers it to him through the gospel; and those that accept 
will be saved, while those that reject will be lost. The 
same thing is true now where the gospel is preached. As 
many as are inclined, or determined, for eternal life believe, 
while others not so inclined do not believe. E. G. S. 

"ORDAINED," BAPTIZING WITHOUT BEING. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Mr. J. B. Murray, who is in the 
last stage of consumption, had been requesting the Baptists to bap- 
tize him; but they would not unless he would go to a church meeting 
and tell his experience and be received by the church. A short time 
since he came into my storehouse, and I said to him that I under- 
stood he wanted to be baptized. He said that he did. So I com- 
menced talking to him, and he became interested and invited me to 
come to his house and talk with him, which I did and taught him the 
way of the Lord more perfectly. I also sent him Brother Franklin's 
Gospel Preacher, which gave him great satisfaction. On February 
2 he sent me a note, stating that somebody had been trying to per- 
suade him that it would kill him to be baptized, but that he told them 
he could not die in a better cause, and requested me to come and bap- 
tize him that evening. So I went and baptized him and his wife upon 
the same confession that Philip baptized the eunuch. The question 
is: Did I do right? I am not an ordained preacher, and for that rea- 
son some might think that I did wrong. There is not an ordained gos- 
pel preacher in the county. My aim is to do right; and if I did wrong- 
in doing what I did, I want to be set right. 

Our brother did exactly right. He would have done a 
great wrong to have acted otherwise. We have baptized 
several hundred, have never been what is called ordained, 
yet have no fear of being chided by the Heavenly Father 
as doing wrong for baptizing a believer in Christ. D. L. 

ORDER OF THE ACTS OF WORSHIP. 

Brother Lipscomb : As there is much being said in regard to the 
worship upon the first day of the week, I wish to ask you a few ques- 
tions, which I prefer you to answer through the Gospel Advocate. 
According to the divine record, what is to be done when we come to- 
gether? Please give us the things to be done and the order in which 



472 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

they come. In 1 Cor. 14: 40 we find that we should do all things 
"decently and in order." Does Acts 2: 42 give us this order? Would 
we not be perfectly safe in following this order given by Luke? 

I have never seen in the Scriptures an indication of an 
appointed order in which the services on the Lord's day 
were to be performed. When a specific order was to be 
followed, it was carefully pointed out, as when an altar or 
priest was to be sanctified. "Take the Levites from among 
the children of Israel, and cleanse them. And thus shalt 
thou do unto them, to cleanse them: sprinkle the water of 
expiation upon them, and let them cause a razor to pass 
over all their flesh, and let them wash their clothes, and 
cleanse themselves. Then let them take a young bullock, 
and its meal offering, fine flour mingled with oil; and an- 
other young bullock shalt thou take for a sin offering," etc. 
Here was a regular order to be followed, and it is pointed 
out clearly. No order is pointed out in Acts 2: 42. The 
things to be done are mentioned. They are to be steadfast 
in the apostles' doctrine or teaching. There are different 
ways of engaging in the apostolic teaching. The teaching 
can be read or spoken or sung. Any and all of these exer- 
cises should be engaged in, but in all of them care should be 
taken that the teachings of the apostles be read, spoken, or 
sung. Nothing should be read, spoken, or sung that is not 
apostolic teaching. They are to observe the fellowship. 
One act of the fellowship is contributing for the help of the 
needy and speaking words of sympathy and encouragement 
for our brethren in their temptations and trials. This may 
be done in the beginning of the service, during the service, 
or at or after its close. The breaking of bread must be at- 
tended to and prayers. I do not think it a sin to pray when 
we begin, during the service, or at the close. Pray with- 
out ceasing and everywhere, is the command. When the 
Lord's Supper was instituted, this order was not followed. 
Jesus, after the Supper, made the talk given in John 14: 17. 
concluding with the prayer. There is no specific order 
given in the Scriptures. To try to enforce one is to add to 
the law of God and to bring ridicule on the claim to obey 
God's commands. 

ORDINANCES, GOD'S. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain James 5: 16 through the Gos- 
pel Advocate. It reads: "Confess your faults one to another, and 
pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent 
prayer of a righteous man availeth much." I wish to know if James' 
design to teach confessing our faults is to be practiced as a religious 
ordinance in the church of Christ. I write this only for information, 
in order to do my Master's will. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 473 

An ordinance is anything ordained. A private duty 
ordained or commanded of the Lord is as much an ordi- 
nance of God as a public observance. But God has or- 
dained both private duties and public observances. We 
generally call the public observances church ordinances. 
In that sense we do not think the command has any spe- 
cial reference to public ordinances. Whenever we com- 
mit faults, we ought to confess them. Sometimes they 
may be between individuals of such character as not to de- 
mand a public statement of them. Whenever a sin com- 
mitted comes to the knowledge of the church, the confession 
of it should be public — before all. There should be no hes- 
itancy or drawing back as to confessing our faults; and 
whenever Christians confess their faults to each other, 
whether it be to one or many, those to whom the confession 
is made should pray with and for the wrongdoer, that his 
sins may be forgiven him. But the Bible nowhere sets 
forth the idea that there should be regular stated times for 
a general confession, as a stated church observance, whether 
we have sinned or not. 

ORDINATION AND BAPTIZING. 

Brother Lipscomb : I am writing for information. Has any man 
the right to baptize who has only been ordained as a deacon, though 
he teaches the truth as any minister of Christ? I know of one that 
has baptized two persons. Now, if he teaches the truth and baptizes 
those that believe, is he acceptable with Christ and his church? 

I have never seen where the Scriptures required a man 
to be ordained to anything to authorize him to baptize per- 
sons. In the New Testament the disciples all are repre- 
sented as teaching the way of life and as baptizing them. 
The disciples were scattered abroad from Jerusalem and 
went everywhere preaching the word. Many received it 
and became followers of Christ. Ananias, who went to 
Saul, and who likely baptized him, is only called a disciple. 
We know of neither example nor precept that indicates per- 
sons should be ordained to qualify them to baptize. This 
idea of requiring ordained persons to baptize I do not think 
comes from the Bible. It is a relic that has come down 
from Rome to her daughters, and is borrowed by disciples 
from them. Any disciple of the Lord Jesus is authorized 
and required to teach the truth to all in his reach ; and 
when he teaches them and they desire to be baptized, then 
he should baptize them. I think, as a matter of good or- 
der, it is well, where there is a regular congregation, to 
have some one or more designated to do this work. 



474 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ORGAN, MY POSITION ON THE. 

Brother Lipscomb: It is reported that you are not opposed to the 
use of the organ in the worship when the church is united in desiring 
to use it. Is that your position? 

It discourages me to receive such questions from those 
who have been readers of the Gospel Advocate. It seems 
to me there is just as much reason for asking me if I be- 
lieve the Bible is true or that Jesus is the Son of God. 

I believe it is a greater sin for ten million to introduce 
the organ than for one, as it makes ten million sinners 
instead of one. I do not believe God excuses one person for 
violating his law because thousands of others do it. I be- 
lieve the person who acquiesces in and participates in a 
practice he believes wrong because others do it is worse 
than he who does it believing it right. I believe those who 
acquiesce in the use of it for the sake of peace are greater 
sinners than those who introduce it thinking it harmless. 
One sins against God ; the other, both against God and his 
own conscience. 

I do not go even so far as Brother Harding to admit it 
was ordained of God among the Jews. He never ordained 
it or approved it. In the imperfect development of Juda- 
ism, he winked at and regulated many things he did not ap- 
prove. Divorce is given by Christ as an example. Polyg- 
amy and slavery I believe of the same type. The kingly 
government of Judea was a sin; yet he chose, regulated, 
and governed the kings. 

Of the same kind I clearly believe was the use of instru- 
mental music. Amos 6 : 5 pronounces a woe on those who 
"chant to the sound of the viol, and invent to themselves 
instruments of music, like David. " Ezra 3: 10 says: "They 
set the priests in their apparel with trumpets, and the Le- 
vites the sons of Asaph with cymbals, to praise the Lord, 
after the ordinance of David king of Israel." I do not 
know of any law of God being referred to as an ordinance 
of an earthly king. This rested on authority of David as 
king of Israel, not on the authority of God. It was in- 
vented and introduced by David ; it was tolerated and regu- 
lated by God until Christ came to establish the perfect will 
of God ; then, like polygamy, divorce, the earthly king and 
rule, they were done away, his floor was purged, the laws 
that were good were perpetuated, while the human addi- 
tions were destroyed. Everything not ordained of God was 
rooted up and only those of God's own planting preserved. 
Instrumental music was dropped out by the Son of God 
and the Holy Spirit, just as polygamy and the easy divorce 
of the Mosaic law; and it is just as much a sin to introduce 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 475 

instrumental music thus dropped out by the Lawgiver as it 
would be to introduce polygamy or divorce for any cause. 

I have never said I would not preach where instrumental 
music is used. I would not preach for them without in a 
Christian way trying to show them the wrong. I have 
preached where instrumental music was used. Sometimes 
brethren, out of deference to me, propose to leave it out 
when I am present. I always tell them my objection to it 
is not that it is offensive to me, but because I believe it of- 
fensive to God. I believe all tinkering with God's appoint- 
ments approximates the presumptuous sin, and it is a fear- 
fully dangerous ground to tread on. 

The scriptures in reference to offending weak brethren 
I do think applicable to this. To offend is to lead into 
sin. It does not refer to wounding the feelings. It might 
be applicable to brethren who think, while the organ is 
wrong, they can go in and worship God, ignoring it, and 
their worship will be acceptable. An idol is nothing, and 
a man may eat that which is offered, ignoring the idol ; yet 
a weak brother, seeing him eating this meat, might think 
he ate it in worship to the idol and be emboldened to eat in 
worship to the idol, and so become an idolater and be de- 
filed. So one might lead others to defile themselves in wor- 
shiping with the organ. D. L. 

ORGAN, WILL WORSHIPING WITH THE, CAUSE ONE 
TO BE LOST? 

Brother Sewell: Is it a sin to worship God with an organ, and will 
it cause one to lose his soul? 

The first thing to consider in this matter is: Does the 
word of God require the use of the organ in the worship? 
If it does, then it is sinful not to use it ; if it is not required, 
then it is sinful to use it, because it is adding to the word 
of God. In the last part of the last chapter in the Bible it 
is said: "I testify unto every man that heareth the words 
of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto 
them, God shall add unto him the plagues which are written 
in this book." Now, can you or any one else find the use of 
the organ required in the worship of the church in the New 
Testament? If you cannot, then this clause of scripture 
fully answers your question ; it fully shows it to be an ad- 
dition to the word of God, and shows the consequences of 
doing such a thing. But if it can be shown that the word 
of God does require an organ to be used in the worship of 
the church, then all those who refuse to so use it are under 
the condemnation of the next clause of the same passage, 
which says: "And if any man shall take away from the 



476 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his 
part from the tree of life, and out of the holy city, which are 
written in this book/' So, then, the question must first be 
decided: Does the word of God require it? When you set- 
tle that, your questions are openly settled. With me, it is 
definitely settled that the word of God does not require the 
organ in worship, but that it is an innovation of human 
wisdom — a human addition. Hence, I would not practice 
it in the face of the above scripture for all the treasures of 
the world. We are aware that many are claiming the right 
to use the organ and to build and manipulate missionary so- 
cieties and such like societies upon the claim of "Christian 
liberty.'' As to what sort of liberty they claim it on, we 
have never heard one of them try to explain. But take it 
as they may, we are sure we have never heard of a more 
absurd claim. How can any one suppose that God would 
establish a principle which would enable men to set aside 
any or all of the positive statements of his holy word? It 
is positively certain that there is no expressed or implied 
authority in the word of God, in the New Testament, for 
the use of either the organ in the worship or the human 
society in the work of the church. It is certain, therefore, 
that to use them is to make additions to the word of God, 
which brings ruin instead of a blessing to all who engage in 
or encourage the doing of such things. If any such lib- 
erty as is claimed were allowed, it would make the word of 
God destroy itself, and leave a loophole for changing any or 
all of the appointments of the New Testament into mere in- 
ventions of men. Christianity allows no such liberty. The 
liberty the gospel gives when obeyed in good faith is free- 
dom from sin, both as to its guilt and practice, and holds 
one to a continued faithfulness in keeping the word of God 
as he gave it, without any addition to it or subtraction from 
it. Therefore the common practice of introducing things 
into the work and worship of the church that God has not 
ordained is simply a plunge back into the meshes of sin and 
its awful penalties. The only safety is to "touch not, taste 
not, handle not" these dangerous, ruinous things. 

ORGAN IN WORSHIP, CAN DIFFERENCES OVER BE 
ARBITRATED? 

Brother Lipscomb: I write for information. Suppose I should 
teach that the use of the organ in worship was unscriptural. An- 
other brother teaches that it is proper and right. Now, suppose that 
each one of us advocates his belief until two parties are formed and 
division occurs; would it be scriptural to invite three or more breth- 
ren from other congregations to decide who is right, or should we ap- 
peal to the Bible only? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 477 

No decision of others can possibly release a man from 
his own conscientious obligations to God. A man's con- 
science is not a sure guide for him ; but no honest man can 
go against his conscience, especially against his conscience 
in respect to God. The only authority to settle questions 
of right is the Bible. We ought to be forbearing and long- 
suffering toward others rather than disturb the harmony 
of a church of God, but we ought in that forbearance be 
true to our convictions to God and to our consciences. In 
matters where no principle of duty to God is at stake, where 
no principle of right is concerned, it is proper to com- 
promise differences. Where disagreement arises between 
brethren and friends in reference to matters of pecuniary 
right, or in any matter involving no principle of right, it is 
well to leave it to others to say which is right — to "arbi- 
trate" it, as it is called. But we cannot see how a person 
can let others decide for him his duty to God. They are 
not answerable for him. Every man must account to his 
own master ; every man must bear his own burden. 

The Scripture is the only rule for deciding questions of 
this kind. A man may think the organ admissible; no 
man from the Bible can believe it requisite. A man may 
have conscientious scruples about using it ; no man can 
have a conscience demanding it. It is of necessity some 
other feeling than conscience that demands the organ. 

ORGANS, GOING TO HELL, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) According to the Scriptures, do our spirits 
go direct to heaven or hell after death, or to an intermediate state to 
await the day of judgment? (2) Is it better for a preacher who is 
opposed to organs in church worship to go along and preach Christ, 
doing all the good he can and discouraging the use of the organ every- 
where, or ought he to try to assume authority which properly belongs 
to elders and scatter firebrands on every hand, creating as much trou- 
ble as possible by his dictation, obstreperousness, and intolerance? 

(1) I do not think it a taught question. I have never 
found a passage of scripture that seemed to me, spoken or 
written, to reveal anything on that subject. If it were 
not of sufficient importance for God to give a sentence to 
reveal the truth on the subject, it is not of sufficient impor- 
tance to require study at our hands. So I reason. I have 
never felt the least interest in the question. I have never 
read a sermon, and seldom an essay, on the subject. If 
we sleep till judgment, it will be to us as a moment. So 
far as anything is taught on the subject is concerned, it is 
done incidentally in teaching truth on other subjects. But 
it seems to me it comes under the head of untaught ques- 
tions that are of no profit. 



478 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

(2) I do not think any one would advise a preacher "to 
assume authority which properly belongs to elders and 
scatter firebrands on every hand, creating as much trouble 
as possible by his dictation, obstreperousness, and intoler- 
ance." I think that must be a misrepresentation of what 
any one would advise. No man ought to be intolerant, ob- 
streperous, or dictatorial; and it is a great sin to scatter 
firebrands among the children of God. But it is not dicta- 
torial to insist on observing God's order, nor is it scattering 
firebrands to insist on keeping everything not appointed of 
God out of the church and its service. Everything brought 
into the church not ordained by God is a firebrand. If it 
should create no blaze when brought into the church, this 
only secures that it will work the more ruin in the end. 
Man cannot determine what will and what will not bring 
peace. God is the author and giver of peace. He gives it 
on his own terms. The only terms on which he gives peace 
is submission to his law and conformity to his will. Often 
a whole people agree as to a course and think they secure 
peace. God may tolerate a seeming peace for a time, but 
present peace in wrong only insures the deeper and more 
widespread strife and ruin in the future. God, through 
Jer. 23: 17-22, gives the true rule for peace and for the 
teacher: "They say still unto them that despise me, The 
Lord hath said, Ye shall have peace; and they say unto 
every one that walketh after the imagination of his own 
heart, No evil shall come upon you. For who hath stood in 
the counsel of the Lord, and hath perceived and heard his 
word? who hath marked his word, and heard it? Behold, 
a whirlwind of the Lord is gone forth in fury, even a griev- 
ous whirlwind: it shall fall grievously upon the head of 
the wicked. The anger of the Lord shall not return, until 
he have executed, and till he have performed the thoughts 
of his heart: in the latter days ye shall consider it per- 
fectly. I have not sent these prophets, yet they ran: I 
have not spoken to them, yet they prophesied. But if they 
had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear 
my words, then they should have turned them from their 
evil way, and from the evil of their doings." 

The man that adds to or takes from God's order despises 
God — rejects him as ruler, sets aside his law, substitutes 
his wisdom for the wisdom of God because he thinks his 
better than God's. He who winks at this and talks of peace 
to them misleads them and cries "peace" when there is no 
peace. The preacher has but one mission, and God will say 
to him: "If they had stood in my counsel, and had caused 
my people to hear my words, then they should have turned 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 479 

them from their evil way, and from the evil of their do- 
ings." The points on which the people are wrong are the 
points the preacher should teach them. The preacher who 
fails to teach truth because that truth is not popular — 
would give offense — is not a preacher called or sent of God. 
While violence and bitterness should be avoided and wisdom 
and prudence should be exercised in maintaining truth and 
opposing error, the man who starts out to compromise the 
truth of God or his own convictions may float along with 
the current and have a good sort of time here, and will 
soon come to have no convictions to stand by; but he will 
never benefit the world or honor God. He will have no re- 
ward for good done to men or for honor given God. 

A man should be firm, earnest, and aggressive for the 
truth. He ought to be patient, but persistent, in maintain- 
ing that truth. To compromise truth, to look lightly on 
error in even small things, is to blunt and sear his own con- 
science and sign the death warrant of his own manhood. 
Men true to God and to themselves (and he who is true to 
one is true to the other) are not plentiful in this world ; yet 
they are greatly needed, and are the only real benefactors 
of the world. A man in youth has the way of manhood and 
fidelity to truth opened to him, and God invites him to walk 
in it ; but we find, especially among the prominent men in 
the church and the world, only here and there a traveler. 

D. L. 

ORGAN, THE, IN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: The church at this place is some- 
what divided in regard to instrumental music in the church. The 
church has an organ for the benefit of the Sunday school, and some 
oppose it. 

The organ is seldom ever introduced into a congregation 
in any way that it does not cause strife and division. The 
Sunday school, if carried on as it should be, is simply one 
department of the work of the church; and to bring the 
organ into it is to bring it into the church. Whenever the 
organ is introduced into that department of the work of 
the church and played for the children till they grow up 
and come into the church, they will bring it into their en- 
tire congregational service, and then division becomes 
greater than when introduced into the Sunday school. The 
older and more substantial members of the church ought to 
be connected with the Sunday school to the extent that 
would enable them to keep the organ out of that, as well as 
out of the church worship proper. The leading cause of 
such innovations is frequently owing to the fact that those 



480 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

who oppose the organ do but comparatively little work in 
the congregation, and, as a consequence, have but little in- 
fluence against it, just because they do so little work, while 
more active members put the organ in, in their absence or 
over their heads. If those members who oppose such inno- 
vations would be active working members, they could most 
generally keep them out. If there were no other reason 
for keeping the organ out of the church than the bare fact 
that it causes division, that would be reason enough to keep 
it out ; for all know that there is no command in the Chris- 
tian Scriptures to put it in. Those members who force an 
organ into the Sunday or the regular worship contrary to 
the wishes of others, and thereby cause division and strife 
among the members, are responsible for all the strife thus 
produced; and when the organ comes into the Sunday 
school, it is only a matter of time when it will be in the 
regular worship of the congregation. This is the stepping- 
stone to its full introduction. Better never make anything 
popular with the children in connection with their religious 
instruction that is not desirable in the church. Children 
should be trained up in the nurture and admonition of the 
Lord, and he never admonishes bringing an organ either 
into the church or the Sunday school. E. G. S. 

ORGAN, CAN CHRISTIANS WORSHIP WITH A CHURCH 
THAT USES THE? 

Brother Lipscomb: We have two or three members in the church 
here who have quit going to church because they use the organ and 
have a Christian Endeavor Society. They say: "Of course it is 
wrong to worship with the organ," etc. So on this ground these mem- 
bers do not go to church, do not partake of the Lord's Supper (which 
they themselves believe ought to be partaken of each Lord's day), and 
are out of the fellowship of the church, too. Now, they could not 
take membership with any other church near here, because they all 
use the organ. These same members are growing cold and indiffer- 
ent, and pass away a good portion of their time in worldly amuse- 
ments and secular games. Further, these members did not say that 
they would leave the congregation if the organ was put in. Now, do 
you not think, as the organ was put in without their consent, that it 
is better for them to meet with the church and commune and fellow- 
ship with the church than it is to go back into the world, never attend 
church, and grow cold and indifferent? I do not much like to have 
an organ in the church myself, and I never gave my consent for its 
use nor paid a cent for it; but I told the church that I would not let a 
little organ drive me out of the church or keep me from doing my 
duty toward my God. So I am always found at the Lord's house on 
Lord's day to do my duty the best I can. 

Those brethren certainly commit a great sin in letting 
the organ drive them from the worship of God and the 
communion of the saints ; but I am not sure a man can do 
his duty to God in building up a congregation that has in- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 481 

troduced the organ and the Endeavor Society. A church 
is a church of God only so long as it is governed by the law 
of God. "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him 
only shalt thou serve." A church that introduces things 
not ordained by God into the worship or service of God does 
not "serve God only." In introducing things not ordained 
by God, the church is not serving God; it is serving some 
one else than God. It is not loyal to God and is not a church 
of God. Then refusing to worship with a church that re- 
jects the authority of God by introducing things not or- 
dained of God is not to refuse to worship God. Of course 
our brother draws back from this conclusion that it is not 
the church of God. But he does not like the organ, he says. 
Why? If God ordained it or commanded it, he ought to, 
and certainly would, like it: I would. The only dislike 
or objection I have to the organ is, God has not ordained or 
commanded it. But it is "such a little thing," our brother 
says, he will not let it drive him from the fellowship of the 
church. Where did he learn that anything added to or 
taken from the word of God is " a little thing?" The organ 
is nothing, the apple in Eden was nothing, the dipping in 
the Jordan by Naaman was nothing, and the water of bap- 
tism, in itself, is nothing; but obedience to God is a big 
thing, is everything. To add anything to or take anything 
from the appointments of God is treason to God in this 
principle laid down as fundamental by Jesus: "Him only 
shalt thou serve." Loyalty and fidelity to God can be tested 
by things little as well as by those great in the sight of men. 
Indeed, when a man comes to regard any change in the ap- 
pointments of God a little thing, he is already disloyal to 
God. "He that is faithful in that which is least is faithful 
also in much: and he that is unjust in the least is unjust 
also in much." (Luke 16: 10.) "Whosoever therefore 
shall break one of these least commandments, and shall 
teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of 
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same 
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 5: 
19.) "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet 
offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, 
Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou 
commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a 
transgressor of the law." (James 2 : 10, 11.) That means 
that he who sets aside the law or order of God in one point 
under the idea that it is a little thing breaks the whole law 
of God, makes himself a rebel against God and his law. 

Our brother clearly thinks the organ is not required by 
God ; that it is added by man, and that this is a little thing. 



482 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

This is to say, to add to or change the order and appoint- 
ments of God is a little thing. This is presumption — the 
greatest of all sins. But for these brethren to permit the 
introduction of an organ or the apostasy of a church in any 
point to drive them from service to God is a sin that, if not 
repented of, will carry them down to hell; but if they be- 
lieve the organ is sinful, it is not their duty to worship with 
it or with the church that sets aside the authority of God 
by introducing it. That will not help them. Our brother 
is right in saying the church will not put it out. I have 
never seen a church that started in that direction stop. 
They may halt for a time to reconcile others, but they never 
stop. The downhill course is so easy to travel. A church 
that has known the truth and deliberately turns from it 
will wax worse and worse. The sooner it shows its com- 
plete disregard for God, the better. It gives opening for 
and makes evident the necessity of the formation of a 
church loyal to God and true to his law. These members 
who see the sinful course of the church are under the high- 
est obligation to God and men, to their own souls and to 
their neighbors', to worship God according to his will, show 
their loyalty and devotion to God, and maintain in the com- 
munity a church loyal to God. "Where two or three are 
gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of 
them." (Matt. 18: 20.) When Jesus is with them, all 
the power and blessings of God are with them to bless them 
and to make them a blessing to others. This is true, 
whether they meet at each other's houses, in a stable, or in 
the woods. The idea that children of God cannot find a 
church of God is a ridiculous absurdity. They constitute 
a church of God themselves. Let them meet and worship. 
When they make the introduction of an organ or any apos- 
tasy an excuse to grow cold and do nothing, they show their 
unworthiness as children of God. 

ORGANS, MAY CHRISTIANS BUY? 

Brother Lipscomb: Should we always strive to spend our money 
to the honor and glory of God? Can money be spent to this end when 
spent for organs? Suppose all the money spent by the churches for 
organs and such like should be given to mission work, feeding and 
clothing the poor, etc., would it not be much more pleasing to the 
Lord? Will not the Lord love most those who strive the hardest to 
please him? 

I take it, the question is intended to apply to all instru- 
ments of music — for those at home as well as at church. 
Such questions cannot be so definitely answered as we might 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 483 

sometimes wish. A similar question arose in the Savior's 
day over the anointing of his body. The woman anointed 
his body. The disciples thought it a waste. Jesus said : 
"Why trouble ye the woman? for she hath wrought a good 
work upon me. For ye have the poor always with you ; 
but me ye have not always. For in that she poured this 
ointment upon my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. 
Verily I say unto you. Wheresoever this gospel shall be 
preached in the whole world, that also which this woman 
hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her." (Matt. 
26: 10-13.) The work done here differed from that pro- 
posed by the brother, but it shows that other work than the 
strictly religious may be attended to. Again, when the 
apostle Paul told the Corinthians, "If one of them that be- 
lieve not biddeth you to a feast, and ye are disposed to go," 
he told what to do, showing they were permitted to asso- 
ciate with unbelievers as a recreation. The point is, God 
recognizes that men have wants and even necessities aside 
from religious duties that need to be supplied. Children 
and young people need playthings and means of recreation. 
Who shall say what these shall be? Once I was with an old 
man and his wife. The wife loved a red ribbon on her bon- 
net. The man asked if I did not think she sinned in wear- 
ing it. I looked at him and replied that it seemed so, but 
I would not know how to draw a line that would admit a 
starched shirt bosom and other articles of his wear and cut 
it off. What they shall wear or shall not wear, save 
"braided hair, and gold or pearls or costly raiment" (1 Tim. 
2: 9), is not prescribed. With no rigid rules laid down, 
we cannot enforce rigid rules. The rule as to what they 
shall buy or wear is for their own application. It is our 
duty to teach these things ; but to apply them, the wearer 
will have to decide for himself. Then while one cannot say 
what another shall buy or use, all should insist in general 
terms on economy and prudence; but every man will have 
to decide for himself what he or his family shall wear. It 
would look a little odd or strange to see a preacher who 
spends freely and dresses with display lecturing others 
about dressing fine. Some families might do worse with 
their money than to buy a musical instrument. Yet in all 
these questions, when we deny ourselves to preach the gos- 
pel, honor God, and save sinners, we will be blessed. 

With these explanations, the questions may all be an- 
swered affirmatively, with the further statement that many 
will be lost from a refusal to deny self and serve God. 
What we can cheerfully and gladly deny ourselves to ad- 
vance the cause of God and convert sinners, God will bless us 



484 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

for The more gladly and cheerfully we make the denial 
and the greater the denial, the greater the blessing. This 
is true of all blessings and sacrifices that Christians make 
for the cause of God and man. 

"OWE NO MAN ANYTHING." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: You will please give us some light 
on Rom. 13: 8, and especially this part of it: "Owe no man anything." 

The most natural application that we know of is that it 
covers the whole ground of our responsibilities and obli- 
gations one to another. It embraces money and all sorts 
of kind offices that in the course of events Christians owe 
to one another. Kind words, kind actions, proper manifes- 
tations of gratitude for favors bestowed, and apologies for 
improprieties committed against another are all as natu- 
rally embraced as matters involving money. But we are 
fully satisfied it embraces money, and that when a Christian 
goes heedlessly in debt and makes no effort to pay and al- 
lows others to suffer on his account, he forfeits all claim to 
the Christian life and throws a blight upon the cause, so far 
as his influence extends. We do not pretend to say that 
buying things on credit or borrowing money or property 
for a time mutually agreed upon is necessarily wrong; but 
if a Christian man enters recklessly into such obligations 
when he knows he has no means in reach to pay, or care- 
lessly makes no effort to meet such obligations after delib- 
erately and in apparent good faith entering into the obliga- 
tion, he no longer deserves the respect of men or the fel- 
lowship of the congregation. Churches everywhere should 
deal more rigidly with members who act thus ; and if when 
gospel means have been exhausted in efforts to reform them 
they still persist in their pernicious ways, they should be 
as carefully withdrawn from as for any other acts of im- 
morality. 

Christians should owe nothing but "to love one another." 
This is a debt that as Christians we are always owing, 
though always paying. As fast as we discharge this obli- 
gation for one moment, one hour, or one day, the very same 
obligation repeats itself the next moment, hour, or day; 
and hence "to love one another" is an obligation always re- 
maining with us, and we should be always discharging the 
same. E. G. S. 

PARADISE, WHERE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please answer the following 
query: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." (Luke 22: 43.) 
By following Jesus we follow the thief that day. Where did Christ 
go that day? See Matt. 16: 18; Acts 2: 31; Eph. 4: 9, from which 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 485 

we learn that Christ first went into Hades. Now see 2 Cor. 12: 2-4, 
from which we learn that paradise equals the third heaven. From 
Eph. 4: 8-10 we learn that after Jesus descended first into the lower 
parts of the earth he ascended up far above all heavens. But he had 
not thus ascended to the Father up to the time he rose from the dead. 
(John 20: 17.) Now, from Acts 1: 6 we learn that the disciples, 
who had been intimate with Jesus for three years and a half and whom 
Jesus had taught for forty days after his resurrection, were igno- 
rant of the nature of his kingdom; and hence the thief, with all his 
disadvantages, must have been at least as ignorant of that. The 
Jews, all as a nation, expected a temporal kingdom and were wont to 
regard Christ as a temporal king. Now, in view of this fact and the 
circumstances brought to bear on the thief in Luke 23: 35-38, is it 
not legitimate to conclude that his request had reference to Jesus' 
temporal power to save himself and him, too, from that death? Now 
for the query: Was the thief saved, or will he finally be saved, in the 
everlasting kingdom? If so, upon the sovereignty of Jesus, or how? 
In all honesty, I desire an answer, as I have special use for this case. 

The question is one we will not undertake to answer with 
a positive yes or no ; but from all that we can gather from 
the general teaching of the Bible, we do not see how the 
point can be made that he was saved. We do not know 
how the thief could have gained knowledge of the future 
kingdom of Christ, nor do we think that he did have such 
knowledge. We do not know positively in what sense the 
word paradise is used. The word literally means a gar- 
den, park, or pleasure ground ; and the Greeks got to using 
the word to signify a place of pleasure or happiness in the 
unseen world, transferring the idea of a pleasure ground 
into eternity. By a very common figure of speech, in which 
a part is made to represent the whole, the Savior may have 
used the word here in a general sense, simply to signify the 
land of the dead — the unseen world ; and then the meaning 
would be: "I shall die to-day and go into the unseen 
world, and you will die and go with me." This would be 
very natural upon the understanding that the thief, in 
common with the apostles and all who believed in Christ, 
had only the idea that Christ had come to establish an 
earthly kingdom. In that case his prayer would simply 
have reference to this life, supposing that Christ would 
come down from the cross and at once become an earthly 
king by miraculous power. The answer of Jesus gives him 
to understand that such would not be the case. 

PARADISE AND THE "THIRD HEAVEN." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In 2 Cor. 12: 2 we have this lan- 
guage from Paul: "I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years 
ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, 
I cannot tell: God knoweth;) such a one caught up to the third 
heaven." (1) What is meant by the term body in this scripture? 
Does it allude to the flesh? (2) What is meant by the phrase third 



486 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

heaven in this verse? Also what is meant by the word paradise in 
verse 4? Are there degrees or promotions in the world of bliss and 
immortality? 

We have no doubt that the body referred to is the flesh. 
Paul was in a trance. Revelations were made to him of 
the state of the blessed. The third heavens were opened, 
or he was caught up to them. Whether his body was car- 
ried there or the spirit went there without the body, he 
seems not to know. 

The Jews divided the space above the earth into three 
departments, called heavens — (1) the atmosphere where 
the clouds gather; (2) the firmament in which the sun, 
moon, and stars are fixed; (3) the abode of God and the 
angels. Paul was given a sight of this abode. The divi- 
sions have no reference to degrees of bliss, as the spirits 
are supposed to inhabit only the third heavens. Paul sim- 
ply uses this style to indicate that he had seen in a vision 
the home of God and the just. 

Paradise is a word of indefinite meaning. It was supposed 
to mean originally a garden of rest, quiet, and peace. It 
came to refer to the rest of the weary in the grave and the 
peace of those beyond the second death. It came to typify 
the upper or third heavens, and is used, no doubt, in this 
sense in this passage. We do not know much, therefore do 
not like to write much, concerning these matters. D. L. 

PARADISE AND THE DYING THIEF. 

Being very desirous of obtaining some light on Luke 23 : 43, I ap- 
peal unto you. Christ, in answer to one of the thieves, said: "To- 
day shalt thou be with me in paradise." Now, I want to know what 
is meant by the word paradise — whether the grave or third heaven. 
If the grave, is it anywhere else used in the Bible for the same? 
You will please give us the Greek on this. Also, how will you recon- 
cile Matt. 27; 44 and Luke 23: 42? 

It takes no Greek on this subject of paradise. It is used 
but three times in the Bible. It is not used in precisely 
the same sense in any two of these cases. Luke (23: 43) 
says: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise." In 2 
Cor. 12: 4, Paul says he "was caught up into paradise." 
Rev. 2: 7 says: "To him that overcometh, to him will I 
give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the 
paradise of God." 

Paradise means a great garden. It came to refer to the 
garden of Eden. It then referred to any pleasant, retired 
spot where peace and quiet reigned. It came to refer to 
the state of the dead, especially the blessed, as their spirits 
were supposed to float through green, shady woods and 
pleasant, flowery meadows. From this it came to refer 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 487 

to the grave itself, as a place of quiet and rest from toil 
and suffering here. It was used, we are sure, in this sense 
by the Savior when speaking to the thief. It meant: "You 
and I from the torment and suffering of the cross will this 
day rest in the peace and quiet of the grave." The same 
place called paradise here is called Hades or hell in our 
version of Acts 2 : 27 : "Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell 
[Hades] ." This shows the Savior went to Hades that day. 
In it God would not suffer his soul to remain nor his body 
to see corruption Or decay. This was the grave to which 
he went. He called it paradise to the thief. The two pas- 
sages referred to are made to contradict each other by 
making the thief ask for and the Savior promise salvation 
in heaven. 

Matthew says the thieves (both of them) cast the same 
in his teeth — reviled him in consequence of his claims. 
Luke, without telling this, tells what each of them said to 
him. One, in ridicule of his claims to be the Son of God 
or Christ, said, "Save thyself and us;" the other, in ridi- 
cule of his claims to be a king, after going through a mock 
reproof of the other, said : "When you come into your king- 
dom, remember me." The Savior, in response, to reprove 
both, said: "To-day you and I will be in the quiet of the 
grave." This, to my mind, is the only possible explana- 
tion of the occurrence, and needs no reconciling with other 
passages. 

The explanation usually given is that one thief, after 
reviling him, was converted and repented. This is a mere 
guess and farce, put to get out of a difficulty. The same 
conversation is reported by both evangelists, occurring at 
the same time. It is precisely the same conversation re- 
ported by both writers. There was nothing in the circum- 
stances connected with Christ's crucifixion up to this time 
to excite faith or convert unbelief. Up to this time all was 
against him. The punishment appalled the stoutest hearts ; 
made those already his followers forsake him. The won- 
derful manifestations that made the centurion exclaim, 
"This surely was the Son of God," had not occurred. This 
is in exact agreement with the facts, too ; for unto the 
grave and nowhere else did he that day go. He did not go 
to heaven. Peter called the paradise to which he went hell 
or Hades. D. L. 

PARDON, THE TERMS OF, THE SAME TO ALL. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Setvell: Are the terms of pardon the same 
to the involuntarily ignorant, that cannot read and have not heard 
read in its purity the gospel, as to the highly educated and morally 
disciplined, both being alien sinners? 



488 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The terms of pardon are certainly the same to all alien 
sinners, whether they be learned or unlearned. When Je- 
sus charged the apostles in his last commission to them, he 
said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to 
every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be 
saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Here 
the very same conditions are applicable to all. The gospel 
facts to be believed and the things required to be done are 
of such a character that the commonest mind can under- 
stand them as well as the most profound. No one who has 
mind enough to be responsible can be saved without faith, 
nor can the profoundest sage the world ever saw. No sin- 
ner, however ignorant or however wise, can be saved with- 
out repentance. Every one that has sinned is commanded 
to repent, and neither ignorance nor learning can escape it. 
The same is true of all the requirements of the gospel. 
Some, by their natural talents and acquired ability, are 
capable of doing much more for the advancement of the 
cause than others, much more work in the church; but all 
are required to do the same things in becoming Christians. 

We remember seeing a colored man once who avoided in- 
struction in the Bible, supposing that his ignorance of it 
would shield him from responsibility. He failed to realize 
that in so doing he classed himself with those in the days 
of the Savior who closed their eyes and ears against the 
truth. Those that have an opportunity to learn the truth 
and will not are about as guilty, we think, as those who 
know the truth and will not obey it. In this Bible land we 
think there will be but little excuse for those who do not 
learn the will of the Lord. All can learn the plain require- 
ments of the gospel as given in the New Testament if they 
will. There is more difficulty in inducing people to accept 
the gospel than there is in getting them to understand it. 

E. G. S. 

PASSING THE PLATE. 

We have had some controversy over the matter of passing the 
plate for the weekly contribution in our congregation at this place. 
I take the position that it is scripturally wrong. Am I right or 
wrong? 

The Bible does not say a word about a plate or basket or 
hat or tin bucket handed around. It says to lay by in store, 
or the treasury, on the first day of the week. It does not 
say whether it shall be done by putting it in with the hand 
or taking it in the mouth and dropping it in, nor does it say 
whether the treasury shall be made of a box or basket or a 
bag. It does not say whether it shall be hung at the door, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 489 

laid on the table, or whether the treasury shall be carried 
to the person or he go to it. And where the Scriptures 
give no direction, the man who insists on one or another 
simply thinks more of his traditions — the way he has been 
accustomed to do things — than he does of the commands 
of God. 

PASSOVER, WERE THE, AND THE LORD'S SUPPER 
THE SAME? 

I wish Brother D. Lipscomb would answer through the Gospel Ad- 
vocate if the Lord's Supper and the feast of the passover are the 
same. I wish he would write a discourse on them. 

We would not know how to write a very long discourse 
on this subject. The Lord's Supper and the passover are 
not the same. The passover commemorated the passing 
by those who had the blood of the lamb upon the door when 
the avenging angel went forth to destroy the firstborn of 
the Egyptians. The passover feast was intended to per- 
petuate the memory of this salvation. The blood of the 
paschal lamb typified the blood of the Son of God. On the 
night of the passover, the Lord's Supper, to be commemora- 
tive of the blood of Christ, was instituted ; but it was ob- 
served under the guidance of the Spirit on the first day of 
the week. The passover pointed forward to the blood of 
Christ shed for the remission of sins. The Lord's Supper 
points back to it as commemorative of this blood shed. 

PAUL PLANTING AND APOLLOS WATERING. 

Please explain 1 Cor. 3 : 6 through the Gospel Advocate. 

The verse is this : "I have planted, Apollos watered ; but 
God gave the increase." Paul was simply illustrating a 
principle, and not attempting to tell what had actually oc- 
curred at Corinth; and it is a truth that Apollos went to 
Corinth after Paul had made a long stay there and after 
"many of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were bap- 
tized" by Paul. It is probable also that as Apollos was a 
zealous, eloquent man, he furthered the work that was be- 
gun by Paul. But that was not what Paul intended prin- 
cipally to teach. The point with Paul was virtually this: 
That one man may plant the cause of truth by preaching 
the gospel; another man may come in and may labor fur- 
ther with the work and assist in their growth, both in grace 
and in numbers; but when this growth takes place, the 
power that effected the growth is in the gospel, and not in 
the men that preached it; and as the gospel is the power 
of God unto salvation to them that believe, when the gos- 
pel produces increase both in grace and in numbers, that 



490 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

increase is from God, and not from the men who did the 
preaching. Yet preaching and teaching are necessary, just 
as it is necessary that seed shall be planted and, when it 
comes up, be cultivated in order to produce a literal crop. 
It is, therefore, literally true in nature that one may plant 
and another water, cultivate, and thus promote the growth 
of a crop ; but it is the power of God in the seed, the soil, 
the seasons, etc., that brings the increase. The Corinthians 
were divided over men, as though they had done all the 
work as men that had been there. The apostle shows 
them the folly of this, and lets them know that the power 
that saves men is the power of God, which is in the gospel, 
and not in the men that preach it. The Corinthians were 
following men when they should have been following God, 
the author of the gospel, the saving power of God. All the 
honor for salvation belongs to God, while men that faith- 
fully proclaim the word of God are only to be honored as 
servants, doing that which is their duty to do, and not to be 
dignified as leaders. "So then neither is he that planteth 
anything, neither is he that watereth ; but God that giveth 
the increase." E. G. S. 

PHARAOH, THE NAME. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please explain the following: Is 
Pharaoh, the king, that is spoken of in Acts 7: 10, the same king 
spoken of in verse 18 which knew not Joseph? If so, in what sense 
did he not know him? 

Pharaoh simply meant a king of Egypt. All the kings 
were called Pharaoh. One Pharaoh, or king, was reigning 
when Joseph was advanced to a position of honor and trust. 
He died. Another Pharaoh, or king, arose who did not 
know him. He was not familiar with his character and 
excellencies. Not having this knowledge of him, he was 
not so friendly to his kindred, and so oppressed them. 

D. L. 

POPE, THE FIRST CATHOLIC. 

Brother Sewell: When did the Catholics have their first pope? 

It is hard to fix any particular time in the history of the 
church when the first pope was installed. From the latter 
half of the second century on the struggle began between 
the bishops of different churches as to which bishop should 
have the supremacy. The claim began to be made in the 
third century that the bishop in the largest town, or the 
oldest, largest, or the most prominent, the most aggressive, 
the most noted or popular church, should be the universal 
bishop or pope of all the churches. But this struggle was 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 491 

kept up for a long time before any settlement of the matter 
was made. When these general struggles had gone on for 
a good while, the conflict narrowed down till only the bish- 
ops of Rome and of Constantinople were in the conflict. 
This conflict also continued for some time, involving the 
Greek Church and the Latin Church, or Church of Rome, 
which became the Roman Catholic Church. And even as to 
this contest, it is a little difficult to determine precisely the 
time when the bishop of Rome was acknowledged as uni- 
versal bishop, or pope. But the general contention is that 
early in the seventh century the struggle was ended, when 
Phocas, a very wicked Roman emperor, was induced by 
Bishop Boniface III., of Rome, to proclaim him as the uni- 
versal bishop of the church. This event occurred about the 
year 606. So he was the first general pope. 

POPULARITY WITH THE WORLD. 

Why was woe pronounced against the person when all men spoke 
well of him in Luke 6? James says we are to keep ourselves "un- 
spotted from the world." I confess I cannot harmonize the two. 

Christ and James both really and virtually teach the 
same thing when we understand the things about which 
they were speaking, and there is no appearance of contra- 
diction. When Christ said, "Woe unto you, when all men 
shall speak well of you ! for so did their fathers to the false 
prophets," he was speaking of the practice of those who 
claim to be the followers of Christ, seeking the favor and 
friendship of a wicked world, seeking to be popular with 
those who disregard the religion of Christ. There are 
plenty of those called Christians to-day who think more of 
the favor and good will of the world than they do of the 
good will of God or of his people. This is true with many 
of those members who are seeking worldly offices and 
worldly promotion. Such men know that in order to suc- 
cess they must be popular with the outside world ; and those 
thatrun for office and do not seek for popularity with the 
outside world — the world that is in rebellion against God — 
are almost certain in these days of corruption in worldly 
governments to be left out. They must do as the world 
does, partake of the ways of the world, so as to be popular 
with the world, so that the masses of a wicked world will 
speak well of them in order to success. There may be 
some exceptions to this rule, but not many. The time is 
pretty well past when men are put into office because they 
are good men. A man who earnestly and devotedly lives 
the Christian is not popular enough with a wicked world 
for them to divide their emoluments with him. Some 



492 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

worldly or wicked man will step in before. And it was 
just this character of friendship with the world that the 
Savior was speaking of in the above language — not alone 
in office seeking, but in any other matter in which men may 
seek the friendship and applause of a wicked world for 
worldly gain. 

James, when speaking on the same subject, speaks just 
like the Savior. We have an example in the following: 
"Know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity 
with God ? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the 
world is the enemy of God." (James 4: 4.) This pas- 
sage in James is on the same subject that Christ was on in 
Luke, and is just as strong as that of the Savior. No man 
can be in the sense of this passage a friend of the world 
and not be at the same time an enemy of God. When a 
man loves the ways of the world and becomes a friend of 
the world in order to obtain the pleasures or treasures of 
the world, he becomes at the same time an enemy of God 
and puts himself under the woe that the Savior pronounces 
in the above passage in Luke. When James teaches that 
a Christian must keep himself "unspotted from the world," 
he means that he must keep himself from the evil ways of 
the world in every sense — that he must not indulge in any 
of the evil practices of the world, must not ally himself to 
the world in any such way as to participate in the evils of 
the world so as to in any way encourage them or in any wise 
to participate in them. Christians should so live and act 
in the presence of the world as to prove to the world that 
they are Christians indeed — that they are living upon 
Christian principles. Christians cannot keep themselves 
"unspotted from the world" when they are the friends of 
the world and participate in its evils so as to gain their 
friendship and applause and be well spoken of by the world 
because they participate in and encourage them. So Christ 
and James teach precisely the same things on the same sub- 
ject. There is no sort of conflict between them. E. G. S. 

POSTURE IN PRAYER. 

I, like you, believe it is right to kneel in prayer when in an assem- 
bly; but there are some things that bother me — viz.: If it is necessary 
in public prayer, why not in secret prayer, "giving of thanks," and in 
dismissing an audience, etc.? This, I think, will suggest my trouble 
to you, and an answer will be greatly appreciated. 

We did not know any one ever stood up to pray in secret. 
Certainly the same rules regulating public prayer, so far 
as attitude is concerned, would regulate private or secret 
prayer. It is right to pray while we are standing up, when 
we lie down, when we ride along the road; indeed, every 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 493 

breath we draw should bear the odor of prayer to our Fa- 
ther. But when we place ourselves for prayer, we should 
kneel — bow down. Dismissal is a human formality that 
may mean something or nothing. With most people it 
means nothing except a few moments in which to adjust 
themselves for leaving. Certainly an appointment of God 
should not be set aside at the behest of a mere formality, 
Better do away with the formality of a prayer of dismissal. 
If it is real prayer, we can kneel as well as at other times. 
The scriptuial declarations and examples are that we should 
stand up to give thanks, but kneel to pray. When the 
leading purpose is thanksgiving, it is proper to stand up ; 
when the design is prayer, kneeling is proper. Smith's 
Bible Dictionary and other authorities tell us that standing 
in prayer was introduced among Christians first on Easter, 
and then thanksgiving fc the resurrection of Christ was 
proper. Then it came to be introduced on every Lord's 
day, because we should give thanks for the resurrection. 
So it was perverted. We so commingle our prayers and 
thanksgiving now that the same attitude is assumed for 
both. When the leading object is thanksgiving, standing 
is proper ; when prayer is the leading purpose, kneeling is 
proper. A prayer intermingled with thanksgiving would 
not be sin. 

POWERS, THE, THAT BE. 

Please explain Rom. 13: 1: "Let every soul be subject unto the 
higher powers. For there is no power but of God : the powers that be 
are ordained of God." In our Bible class we differ as to who these 
powers are. Some say it is the church power of elders; others claim 
it is the carnal or worldly powers. 

I think it refers to the civil powers. The civil powers 
were ordained of God to execute wrath or inflict punish- 
ment on evildoers. In the last verses of chapter 12 he tells 
them they (Christians) are not to take vengeance, not to 
return good for evil. God will take vengeance. Then in 
chapter 13 he tells them how he does it — through the civil 
power which God has ordained for this special work. He 
overrules it to punish the evil, and, in so doing, administers 
good to the righteous. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Rom. 13: 1-4. Are the poivers 
here spoken of the powers in the church, the rulers or bishops of the 
church, or do they refer to the rulers or the authorities of the govern- 
ment? Does the Greek justify the following reading, which is from 
Conybeare and Howson: "Let every man submit himself to the au- 
thorities of government: for all authority comes from God, and the 
authorities which now are have been set in their place by God: there- 
fore he who sets himself against the authority resists the ordinance 



494 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of God; and they who resist will bring judgment upon themselves. 
For the magistrate is not terrible to good works, but to evil. Wilt 
thou be fearless of his authority? do what is good, and thou shalt have 
the praise. For the magistrate is God's minister for thee for good, 
but if thou art an evildoer, be afraid; for not by chance does he 
bear the sword (of justice), being a minister of God, appointed to do 
vengeance upon the guilty." If this is a correct rendering, it cer- 
tainly settles the question. If it is not, please give it. 

The rendering mentioned above is rather more liberal 
than a strict adherence to the Greek would justify. The 
parties above mentioned have given a paraphrase rather 
than a critical translation. But, still, we doubt not that 
they are correct in referring the passage to the governments 
of this world rather than to the authorities of the church, 
though some men of eminent talent have regarded the whole 
passage as referring to the powers in the church, and not 
worldly governments. But we cannot see the consistency 
of such an interpretation. While it is true that God never 
originated a single one of the governments of this world, 
but that every one that ever did arise was built up in rebel- 
lion against God, yet it is true at the same time that God 
has permitted them to exist, and it is also true that God has 
used these governments as a sword in his hand to punish 
wicked men. He used Nebuchadnezzar, a wicked and idol- 
atrous king, to punish the Jews for their wickedness, to 
punish Tyre and Egypt; and he even calls Nebuchadnezzar 
his servant in Ezekiel when foretelling the overthrow of 
Tyre. So God does ordain the rulers of this world, wicked 
though they may be themselves, for the punishment of oth- 
ers more wicked than themselves. We have long been sat- 
isfied that such is the meaning of the passage in Romans — 
that is, that the only way in which God ordains worldly 
governments is simply in using them, after men built them, 
to accomplish his purposes. E. G. S. 

PRAYER, THE BIBLE ON ALIEN. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please give me and others through 
the Gospel Advocate a thorough disquisition on alien prayer. Give us 
all the Bible teaching on the subject for and against, as there are 
some here that want light on the subject. 

The Bible teaches very plainly that neither alien prayers 
nor prayers of members will be heard while the one that 
prays is willingly violating or refusing God's requirements. 
The first duty of the alien is to hear and obey the gospel of 
Christ, and thereby become a Christian ; and so long as he 
refuses to do that, his prayers can avail nothing. All the 
prayers that he and all the preachers on earth might offer 
could never bring pardon to such a one, for any one in such 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 495 

a situation would be in rebellion against God, while with his 
lips he might be engaged in prayer. Solomon says: "He 
that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even his 
prayer shall be abomination." A prayer that would be 
abomination in the sight of God would not bring a blessing 
very soon. This same principle applies to the church mem- 
ber as well as to the alien. Solomon was addressing God's 
people, the Jews, when he used the language above. In 
precise accord with this, Jesus says: "Not every one that 
saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of 
heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in 
heaven." It matters not how much a Christian may pray 
for the blessings of heaven, he has no promise of being 
heard except as he does the will of God. "The eyes of the 
Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto 
their prayers." The righteous are those who live in obe- 
dience to the will of God; and whenever a righteous man 
ceases to do the will of God, he has no further promise that 
his prayers will be heard. John says: "And whatsoever 
we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his command- 
ments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight." 
This passage plainly expresses the whole principle of God's 
hearing and answering prayer. No man, in the church or 
out of it, need expect God to hear and answer his prayer 
unless he is devoting his heart and life to doing the will of 
God as revealed in the New Testament. E. G. S. 

PRAYER, LEADING IN. 

Please point out the chapter and verse where a man is commanded 
to pray out or lead in prayer. 

The above question reminds me of those who sometimes 
ask : "Where is the chapter and verse that condemns danc- 
ing or gambling or the use of an organ in the worship?" 
and such like. Because they cannot find these things con- 
demned in so many words they conclude there is no harm 
in such things. Yet the teaching of the whole Bible is of a 
character that condemns all these things. On the other 
hand, there are examples in large numbers of public prayer, 
and that by inspired men, and even by the Savior himself. 

Solomon, king of Israel, stood upon his knees and prayed 
a long prayer in the presence of a vast crowd at the dedi- 
cation of the temple, which God had commanded him to 
build; and when he prayed, God told him he would grant 
what he had prayed for. 

We have it said of Christ : "And it came to pass, that, as 
he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of 
his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John 



496 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

also taught his disciples." (Luke 11: 1.) This passage 
indicates that this praying was in the presence of his dis- 
ciples, that they heard him, and as soon as he was done 
they asked him to teach them to pray; and the form of 
prayer which he taught indicates that he expected them to 
use it publicly, giving the form in the plural number : "Our 
Father, . . . give us day by day our daily bread. And 
forgive us our sins," etc. "Now is my soul troubled ; and 
what shall I say ? Father, save me from this hour : but for 
this cause came I unto this hour. Father, glorify thy name. 
Then came there a voice from heaven, saying, I have both 
glorified it, and will glorify it again. The people therefore, 
that stood by, and heard it, said that it thundered: others 
said, An angel spake to him." (John 12: 27-29.) The 
people stood around, and evidently heard the prayer and 
heard the voice that answered him. 

Also in the long prayer in John 17 the disciples evidently 
were present and heard him. He had just made a long talk 
to his disciples about going away from them and sending 
the Holy Spirit upon them, and chapter 17 opens thus: 
"These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, 
and said, Father, the hour is come ; glorify thy Son, that thy 
Son also may glorify thee," etc. All the indications are that 
Jesus made this prayer in the presence of those persons to 
whom he had been talking, as given in the preceding chap- 
ters. 

Also, Paul, in the presence of the company that was with 
him, as we read in Acts 20 : 36, prayed publicly : "And when 
he had thus spoken, he kneeled down, and prayed with them 
all." Here is, without doubt, an instance of public prayer. 
When Paul says, "I will therefore that men pray every- 
where," this word everywhere takes in public prayers as 
well as private ones. Paul also says: "Every man pray- 
ing or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth 
his head." Here praying and prophesying or teaching are 
spoken of in a way that indicates that both are done in con- 
nection, and teaching is generally done in public. 

Also, in Acts 6, where the seven were appointed to serve 
tables, when they were selected, we have : "Whom they set 
before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid 
their hands on them." Here was public prayer. Public 
prayer was also made at Antioch when Paul and Barnabas 
were sent out by the direction of the Holy Spirit. 

Also, in Acts 1, when a hundred and twenty disciples 
were together, public prayer was made, asking God to show 
which man should be taken to fill the place of Judas ? who 
by transgression fell. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 497 

In Acts 2, when the church of God in its fullness was set 
up, it is said : "And they continued steadfastly in the apos- 
tles' doctrine and 'fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and 
in prayers." Here the prayers, as carried on by those 
Christians, are mentioned right along with things that 
everybody knows were done in the public assemblies, such 
as breaking of bread ; and there is every reason to believe 
that this passage had reference to public prayers. 

But these examples are enough. Any man that loves to 
pray to God and loves his word and has any respect for the 
examples of godly men and inspired men can certainly find 
plenty of authority in these examples for public prayer. 

E. G. S. 

PRAYER MEETING, DISPENSING WITH IN HOT 
WEATHER. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: We have a congregation of about 
twenty-five members, about half of whom attend Sunday service and 
weekly prayer meetings. It has been suggested that we dispense 
with prayer meeting during the hot months. Do you think it would 
be consistent? Also, how can we make our meetings interesting? 
We have no preacher, and all the work devolves upon three or four 
male members. 

As to the weekly prayer meetings, we have no positive 
law in the New Testament; but we have requirements to 
pray, and to pray always, without ceasing, and to pray 
everywhere ; and there is no better way of doing part of this 
work than by weekly prayer meetings. It has a tendency 
to cultivate piety and devotion in the hearts and lives of 
Christians. When they meet often together and sing and 
pray together and read and admonish one another, it keeps 
their minds more on the subject of Christianity and is in 
many ways advantageous and edifying to Christians. We 
can see no reason why such a work should be suspended for 
warm weather. Satan's devices and temptations never 
cease, and we need all the help that the prayer meeting af- 
fords to strengthen us against his assaults. We believe in 
perseverance in every good work. A disposition to abandon 
the prayer meetings on account of warm weather is an in- 
dication that as the heat of summer warms up the physical 
man, the spiritual man grows colder. We think spiritual 
life should not fluctuate as the seasons do, but should be al- 
ways striving to use every possible means and opportunity 
for becoming strong in the Lord and in the power of his 
might. 

The question of making the Lord's-day meetings interest- 
ing to the members is a question of decided importance and 
one not very easily answered. When the members cultivate 



498 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

a lively personal interest in their own personal duties and 
privileges, they will always be interested in the worship of 
the Lord's house ; but when members go* to meeting more 
to be entertained than to worship the Lord for themselves, 
it may be very difficult to entertain them. There are some 
good people, however, who desire to serve the Lord and do 
right who have not been properly taught on the subject 
and do not, therefore, properly appreciate the matter. In 
such cases something may be done to increase their interest 
in the meetings; and one of the best ways we know is to 
furnish something for every member to do. Get them all, 
if possible, to engage in a Bible class and read those parts 
of the New Testament especially which treat of Christian 
duty and responsibility, and get them to think and study 
and talk the matter over together, and it will certainly in- 
crease their interest in the Lord's services. Also induce 
the members one by one to read a chapter or even a few 
verses in your meetings, and this will give them a personal 
interest in the work. Induce all the members to sing and 
to learn to sing if not already trained in this delightful part 
of the worship. The exercises should not be very long at a 
time, varied, and brief, so as not to be too brief and thus 
cut off the solemnity. This will always be found best. 
Long speeches, and especially by those who are not fluent 
and pleasant talkers, will always have a bad effect. Long 
readings and tediously prolonged exercises of any kind will 
prove tiresome to some and cause their nonattendance. The 
edification of a congregation is a very nice and difficult 
point, and should be closely studied by those who take the 
lead. Indeed, we know of no subject that needs more ear- 
nest and prayerful attention just now than congregational 
work and edification. But it will be difficult to lay down 
any rules that would be applicable everywhere and under 
all circumstances. Let all study their own surroundings 
for the variation and application of the general suggestions 
we have but briefly made, and good may result. E. G. S. 

PRAYING FOR TEMPORAL BLESSINGS. 

Is it right to pray for temporal blessings? Some think it right to 
pray for rain, and some think not. Please give us the scripture. 
What is prayer? Some say it is the sincere desire of the heart. But 
would it be a prayer unless it was expressed in words? 

We have no record of any unspoken prayer. Sometimes 
it was spoken in an undertone. Hannah's lips moved in 
prayer, but the voice was not heard. Unvoiced or un- 
spoken prayer is nigh akin to faith alone — unembodied, 
undeveloped faith. It has not much weight. I think most 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 499 

certainly it is right to pray for temporal blessings. In the 
old dispensations prayer was made for temporal blessings. 
Their prayers were heard and answered. The fact that 
these prayers were heard is held up as encouragement for 
us to pray as an assurance that God will hear our prayers. 
James (5:17) says: "Elias was a man subject to like pas- 
sion as we are, and he prayed earnestly that it might not 
rain: and it rained not on the earth by the space of three 
years and six months. And he prayed again, and the 
heaven gave rain, and the earth brought forth her fruit." 
I do not know what language means if this is not given to 
encourage Christians to pray as did Elias. The hindrance 
to prayers for rain being answered is this : Any prayer, to 
be heard and answered, must be made in faith — in faith 
that it will be answered. "Let him ask in faith, nothing 
wavering [doubting]. For he that wavereth [doubteth] 
is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. 
For let not that man think that he shall receive anything of 
the Lord." The prayers of a man who has doubts as to his 
prayer being answered will not be answered. Again 
(James 4: 3) : "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask 
amiss, that ye may consume it upon your lusts." When a 
man asks for a thing that he may consume it upon his lusts, 
his prayer will not be answered. The prayer for rain in 
Texas after the long drought would be to obtain that it 
might be consumed upon our lusts. So little of it would be 
devoted to the honor of God or the good of man. One 
brother writes that among the applicants for aid, many 
were able to buy tobacco, although putting up a piteous plea 
that their families were in a starving condition. He said 
the elders demanded a promise that none of the means sent 
them should be so used ; but it is a shame that a man should 
spend his own means to gratify a defiling lust and then take 
means from others to buy bread for his family. Prayers 
of people spending their means on depraving appetites, for 
rain, is an offense to God. Put ourselves in a condition for 
prayer, and I feel sure prayer for rain would be answered. 

D. L. 
PRAYING FOR HIS MURDERERS, JESUS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Did Jesus set us an example of 
intercessory prayer in behalf of those who are living in rebellion 
against his 1 government when he prayed for his murderers, as re- 
corded in Luke 23: 34? 

The Savior doubtless prayed for those in rebellion against 
him on that occasion; but he evidently did not mean that 
they should be forgiven without repentance, but that his 
Father would not blot them out — destroy them — till they 



500 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

should have opportunity to repent. When the day of Pen- 
tecost came, those murderers of the Son of God, the very 
ones that were present when Jesus prayed and the very 
ones that caused his condemnation and crucifixion, were 
commanded to "repent, and be baptized," for pardon and 
remission of their sins. Not one was pardoned that refused 
to obey this command. The history of those men for whom 
he prayed teaches us what he prayed for. Christians now 
ought to pray for sinners — not that God would save them 
out of obedience, but that the word of God may have free 
course among them and be glorified, as Paul directed the 
Thessalonians to pray. (2 Thess. 3: 1.) We often think 
that Christians are not sufficiently persistent in their 
prayers in behalf of the unsaved, the unconverted — not 
that we have any right to pray for their pardon without 
obedience to the gospel ; it would be rebellion to do so ; but 
we may pray for the success of the gospel, that sinners may 
be spared and be so situated that they may receive the 
word of God and be saved by it. E. G. S. 

PREACHERS, CALLED AND SENT. 

What is meant by the passage of scripture found in the letter to 
the Romans: "How shall they preach, except they be sent?" (Rom. 
10: 15.) Please explain what is meant by the sent and called preach- 
ers? 

The preacher and the preaching here referred to was that 
which was done in the beginning before the New Testa- 
ment was written. Preach refers to the original proclama- 
tion of the gospel. None were able to do this unless they 
were sent of God and inspired by the Holy Spirit. Those 
who proclaimed the gospel in the beginning and first made 
it known alone in the Bible are called preachers. They 
who repeat it are called teachers. We have no preachers in 
this sense now. All those old original preachers must be 
both sent and inspired by God. D. L. 

PREACHING CHRIST WITHOUT BAPTISM. 

Brother Lipscomb: Can any one preach Jesus without preaching- 
baptism? A brother here claims he can, and quotes the language of 
Paul: "Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel." (1 
Cor. 1: 17.) 

An inspired man could not preach Christ without preach- 
ing baptism. None ever did. Paul was not sent to bap- 
tize. He usually had some one with him to do the bap- 
tizing; but when no one was present, he did it himself. 
Read the preceding verses to that quoted. Of those claim- 
ing to be followers of Paul he said: "I thank God that I 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 501 

baptized none of you, but Crispus and Gaius ; lest any should 
say that I had baptized in mine own name. And I baptized 
also the household of Stephanas: besides, I know not 
whether I baptized any other." Paul preached, and "many 
of the Corinthians hearing believed, and were baptized." 
This shows while Paul did not baptize, he preached the ne- 
cessity of baptism, and it was so important there were oth- 
ers with him whose special mission it was to baptize those 
to whom he preached. This certainly indicates it was nec- 
essary, in that they had special persons to do the baptizing. 
When they were not present to do it, he did it himself. To 
preach Christ is to preach him as the ruler and representa- 
tive of God, and no one can preach Christ as he is presented 
in the Scriptures without preaching all the teaching of 
Christ. Paul could only claim to be free from the blood of 
all men by declaring "the whole counsel of God." (Acts 
20:26,27.) 

PREACHING— DID IT CEASE WHEN THE NEW TESTA- 
MENT WAS WRITTEN? 

Brother Lipscomb: Did Christ or any of the apostles teach that 
preaching should cease when the New Testament was written? 

The Savior, in his commission to the apostles, said : "Go 
ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in 
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I 
have commanded you." Under this commission the apos- 
tles were commanded to teach and baptize all nations, and 
to teach those baptized to observe or do all he commanded 
the apostles. This certainly requires those baptized to do 
all he commanded the apostles to do. This seems to make 
it as obligatory on the Christians of every succeeding gen- 
eration to teach all nations of their generation as it was 
on the apostles to teach all of that generation. Can any 
one tell why this does not require the Christians of each 
succeeding generation to preach the gospel as much as it 
required the apostles to do it? If that part of the commis- 
sion that requires those taught by the apostles to teach oth- 
ers has been abrogated, when and by whom was it done? 
When was the teaching to cease? In Acts 8 we have an 
account of the persecution that arose with the death of Ste- 
phen. "And they were all scattered abroad throughout the 
regions of Judea and Samaria, except the apostles." (Verse 
1.) "Therefore they that were scattered abroad went ev- 
erywhere preaching the word." (Verse 4.) We have the 
example that those taught by the apostles understood it 
was their duty to preach the word wherever they went. 



502 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Those scattered abroad first preached the gospel in Antioch. 
(Acts 11: 20.) They clearly understood it was the duty 
of all Christians to preach the gospel wherever they went, 
and it was an essential part of their religion to do this. 

When did it cease to be a part of any Christian's duty to 
teach the word to every one possible? Where is the scrip- 
ture that annulled this duty ? Was the duty confined to the 
apostles ? We find a host of teachers named in the Bible be- 
sides the apostles — Prochorus, Nicanor, Erastus, Aquila, 
Priscilla, Mark, Luke, Silas, Timothy, Titus, Tychicus, etc. 
The duty of teaching rested on Timothy, Titus, and Silas, 
and all that class. Paul nor Peter did not record his teach- 
ing as final and sufficient. So they did not require to be 
taught again and again. So Paul and Barnabas, after hav- 
ing taught and planted churches, returned "to Lystra, and 
to Iconium, and Antioch, confirming the souls of the disci- 
ples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that 
we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom 
of God. And when they had ordained them elders in every 
church, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them 
to the Lord, on whom they believed." (Acts 14: 21-23.) 
These elders appointed were apt to teach and were able to 
continue the teaching. Timothy was left in Ephesus to 
teach and instruct others in the true teaching and correct 
the false teaching. (1 Tim. 1 : 2-4.) When he was telling 
them to correct the false teaching was a good time to tell 
them all teaching must cease, if this were so. In 2 Tim. 
2: 1, 2, Paul admonishes Timothy: "Be strong in the grace 
that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast 
heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou 
to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." 
This was Paul's last and farewell letter. He had urged 
Timothy to "do the work of an evangelist," "preach the 
word," and "be instant in season, out of season;" and now 
he urges him to commit the same "to faithful men, who 
shall be able to teach others also." This teaching was to 
be perpetuated through faithful men after his departure. 
He left Titus in Crete to appoint elders in every city. 
These elders were the teachers of both those within and 
those without the church. Peter, in his last letter, tells: 
"Wherefore I will not be negligent to put you always in re- 
membrance of these things, though ye know them, and be 
established in the present truth. Yea, I think it meet, as 
long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting 
you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off 
this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ hath 
showed me. Moreover I will endeavor that ye may be able 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 503 

after my decease to have these things always in remem- 
brance." (2 Pet. 1: 12-15.) He recognized the necessity 
of stirring up the memory of those already established in 
the truth. How much more the world, who had not obeyed 
the truth, should be taught and admonished of their duty ! 
I could quote other passages, but close with one more: 
"And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that 
heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. 
And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely." 
(Rev. 22: 17.) The bride is the church. The Spirit and 
the church say, "Come," through the disciples. All unto 
the end are to call on sinners, "Come." It is not only laid 
down as a duty, but teaching the word of God is made an 
essential part, indeed, of the essence of the Christian reli- 
gion. So that he who is not imbued with the spirit of 
teaching all in darkness has not the spirit of Christ, is not 
Christ's. A man who is not filled with the desire of teach- 
ing the gospel is not a Christian. All teaching the word of 
God publicly or privately is preaching. Parents bringing 
up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord 
are preaching or teaching under the commission. That 
commission is to every baptized believer; and every man, 
woman, and child that is a Christian is a preacher or 
teacher of the word of God, each in his own sphere and ac- 
cording to his own ability; and one who does not realize 
this and try to act according to it has not the spirit of 
Christ and is none of his. A true Christian cannot refrain 
from teaching the word of God to the lost as opportunity 
offers. The Christians of every age are under the same 
obligation to preach the gospel to every creature that the 
apostles were. How are we doing it? 

PREDESTINATION, ETC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Please explain Rom. 8: 29, 30 
through the Gospel Advocate. It reads thus: "For whom he did 
foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of 
his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren. More- 
over whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he 
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also 
glorified." Has any young preacher a right to take the confession 
of a sinner and baptize him who has never been ordained by the lay- 
ing on of hands? 

The predestination spoken of in this passage has refer- 
ence to God's plan of conforming men to the image of his 
Son, and not to individual persons and their action as a 
matter of necessity under that predestination. God fore- 
ordained a plan of salvation for men, and decreed that all 
that would embrace it should be saved by it, while those 



504 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

that rejected it were to be destroyed by it. The gospel is 
God's foreordained plan to save men. Hence, when Jesus 
sent it out, he said : "He that believeth and is baptized shall 
be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
Never was there a more positive decree than this. There- 
fore, whether men are saved by God's foreordination and 
predestination or not depends upon whether they believe 
and obey the requirements of the gospel or not. When they 
do this, we had as well expect the heavens to fall as that 
such will not be saved. But, on the other hand, if we will 
not obey, we had just as well expect the heavens to fall as 
that such will be saved. Hence, while God has decreed a 
plan of salvation sufficient to save all men that will accept 
it, he has not decreed that any particular man shall accept 
or reject. Every man's salvation, therefore, depends upon 
his own voluntary action in accepting God's plan of favor 
to save him. 

As to preaching, taking the confession, and baptizing 
men, no man needs any ordination by laying on of hands to 
do that. No man in the days of the apostles was ever or- 
dained to give him the right to preach, baptize, attend to 
the Lord's Supper, or anything of the kind. A man can 
preach as authoritatively without hands being laid on him 
as with it, and has all the right to baptize without having 
hands laid on him that he would have with it. E. G. S. 

PRESBYTERIANS, TAKING MEMBERSHIP WITH. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it right for me to put my membership in 
with the Presbyterians when there is no other church, if I do not be- 
lieve in their doctrine? I would like to know the scripture that 
teaches on that point, if there is any. I belong to the church of 
Christ, and the Presbyterian Church is the only church in six or 
eight miles of me. 

If I could worship with the Presbyterians in one place, I 
could in all places. If one member of the church of Christ 
can worship with them without sin, all members can. So 
if you can meet and worship with them without sin in Ore- 
gon, all can and should do it, wherever they are. The will 
of God ought to guide a man in all these things. If the 
Presbyterians teach and practice the will of God, it is every 
man's duty to worship with them and build them up ; if 
they do not teach the will of God, it is wrong to give your 
influence to build them up and spread their teaching. If 
there is only one man in the community that knows the 
truth, there is so much the greater obligation resting upon 
him to teach and practice that truth in the community. It 
is every man's duty to practice the Christian religion as 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 505 

the Bible teaches it. It is as much his duty to do it where 
no one else does it as it is where there is a large church to 
meet with, and there is the greater call for him to do it. 
To give up the truth and build up error because there are 
no friends of truth in a community is to betray the truth 
because it is unpopular. The duty is to practice and teach 
the truth. Worshiping God is not a matter of convenience, 
but of solemn duty that each owes to God. 

PRESBYTERIANS, COMMUNING WITH. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it right for Christians to take 
the Lord's Supper with Presbyterians? I was at meeting to-day, and 
they took it, and some of the brethren and sisters took it with them. 
They offered it to me, and I did not partake of it, for I did not think 
it was right. The preacher was wrong, and I did not think that we 
ought to eat together. He stated in his preaching that Christ raised 
himself from the dead by his own power. I looked into the Bible and 
found it to be a mistake. My proof for this being a mistake is found 
in Acts 2: 24; 3: 15; 5: 30; 10: 40; 13: 30; Rom. 8: 11; 4: 24; 2 
Cor. 4: 14. When I found this much, I did not hunt for any more; 
but I suppose there are plenty more just like this to be found. 

"My people have committed two evils ; they have forsaken 
me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cis- 
terns, broken cisterns, that hold no water." The steps of 
and to evil are always similar — first, to forsake God, and 
then to do things of their own devising that are displeasing 
to him. This order is uniform. No man ever thinks of 
making additions to the appointments of God until he has 
measurably forsaken God's appointments. No man does 
wrong till he ceases to do right. Attending faithfully to 
God's appointments is heaven's preventive for giving serv- 
ice to man's. Doing right is the only security against doing 
wrong. If those brethren had been meeting to attend to 
the Lord's worship, there would have been no occasion for 
the difficulty they propose. We think it entirely useless to 
solve difficulties that grow out of a neglect of duty; for if 
people persist in this neglect, if they avoid one evil, they 
will fall into another. Do your duty as servants of God, 
meet and worship him every first day of the week as his 
people set us the example, and the question settles itself. 

If our brother makes such differences as he mentions be- 
tween him and the preacher a reason for not communing 
with him, we fear he will find few with whom he can com- 
mune. We are not saying by this that it is right to com- 
mune with them. We say the Christians ought to meet 
themselves and attend the Lord's Supper. Then the dif- 
ficulties of the question vanish. D. L. 



506 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

PRESUMPTUOUS SIN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Permit me to call attention to and ask you to 
reconcile statements made by you concerning presumptuous sin that 
seem contradictory. Comparing David's sins of adultery and murder 
of Uriah with Saul's sin in the Amalekite matter, you say that Da- 
vid's sin could be repented of and forgiven, while Saul's could not, 
concluding: "It was a deliberate substitution of human wisdom for 
divine authority." From this I conceived that your idea of presump- 
tuous sin, which David desired to be kept from, was a deliberate sub- 
stitution of human wisdom for divine authority. However, it after- 
wards appears that this does not fully embody your idea. You say: 
"Setting aside God's law of morality deliberately and purposely is as 
much presumptuous sin as to purposely set aside any other law of 
God." Now, brother, if this is true, why was not David's purposed 
and deliberately planned murder of Uriah a presumptuous sin and 
without the pale of repentance and pardon? Will you say, with 
Brother A. J. Moore, that violating a law does not set it aside? 
Then it would seem that Saul's substitution of human wisdom for di- 
vine authority was not a setting aside of divine law, but a presump- 
tuous violation. The law, or command, remained unchanged, though 
violated. I apprehend that only divine power can set aside divine law. 

In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus gives the true state- 
ment of the case. ''Whosoever therefore shall break one 
of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he 
shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." (Matt. 
5: 19.) This does not mean the violation of the law from 
fleshly weakness while maintaining the authority of the 
law. The expression, "and shall teach men so," to break 
the law, shows he meant the breaking it in such sense as to 
annul it by teaching men it may be broken — is not binding. 
David did not break the law in that sense. He violated it 
through fleshly weakness, but desired to maintain and en- 
force it as the law of God. Jesus never said a man who 
through fleshly weakness fails to comply with the least of 
God's laws is least in the kingdom of heaven. It was the 
presumptuous spirit that would set aside any command of 
God as not binding — not of authority that he can deny. 
There is a difference between annulling a law, setting it 
aside, presuming to know a better way, and violating it 
through fleshly weakness while maintaining its authority 
in the heart. Saul did that ; David, this. 

I fail to see the contradiction or the shadow of it. Cer- 
tainly David was laboring under strong fleshly excitement 
when he was trying to escape the odium of his adultery 
that led him to murder Uriah. None of this involved the 
repeal or annulling of the law of God. It was violating it 
under strong fleshly temptation. That David did not de- 
sire to annul it is shown in that when Nathan, in a parable 
of the little ewe lamb, presented his own crime against 
Uriah, he promptly decided : "The man that hath done this 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 507 

thing shall surely die: and he shall restore the lamb four- 
fold, because he hath done this thing, and because he had 
no pity. And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man." 
Nathan presented the enormity of his crime by detailing 
what God had done, and his wickedness in sinning against 
Uriah and God. David said: "I have sinned against the 
Lord." Nathan said : "The Lord also hath put away thy 
sin ; thou shalt not die." Under his own unbiased deci- 
sion he must die. Because of his confession God reprieved 
him from under the sentence. D. L. 

PRIEST, WHEN DID CHRIST BECOME A? 

Brother Sewell: When did Christ first officiate as high priest? 

Christ was never a priest till he had been crucified, his 
own blood shed, which was to be for the remission of sins 
for all who will be pardoned under the new covenant. He 
was not a priest in any sense before his death, as the law 
of Moses was in force till the death of Christ, who took the 
law out of the way, nailing it to his cross. Some theolo- 
gians have told us that he became high priest at his bap- 
tism; that he was baptized into the priestly office at the 
age of thirty, which they say was the priestly age under 
the law. But they forgot that he was not of the priestly 
tribe and could not be a priest till the law of Moses was 
taken out of the way. Paul says : 'Tor the law appointeth 
men high priests, having infirmity: but the word of the 
oath, which was after the law, appointeth a Son, perfected 
for evermore." (Heb. 7: 28.) After the law had ended 
and Christ had shed his own blood, it is said: 'Tor Christ 
entered not into a holy place made with hands, like in pat- 
tern to the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear be- 
fore the face of God for us." (Heb. 9: 24.) This shows 
that Christ was not a high priest on earth, but in heaven. 
His w T ork as high priest began with the first proclamation 
of the gospel and will last till time shall end and close the 
privileges of the gospel to a sinful world. 

PRIESTHOOD OF MELCHISEDEC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I met with the McWhirtersville 
congregation on last Lord's day. They had under consideration in 
the Bible class Heb. 7. In verse 3 of that chapter we have the lan- 
guage: "Without father, without mother, without descent, having 
neither beginning of days, nor end of life ; _but made like unto the 
Son of God; abideth a priest continually." I stated before the class 
that this verse had reference to the order of priesthood, while all the 
brethren present insisted that it could not have reference to the order 
of priesthood, but to his family genealogy. We agreed to submit the 
subject to your consideration. 



508 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Bible students are almost agreed on one explanation of 
the passage. It is that given by Brother Fuqua. The apos- 
tle Paul was showing the superiority of Christ to the priest 
of the Levitical order. He shows that Abraham, the father 
of the Levitical priesthood, himself paid tithes to Melchise- 
dec; that the Levitical priests in the person of Abraham 
paid tithes to Melchisedec. Melchisedec did not come to 
the priestly office by fleshly descent, but was made such by 
direct appointment of the living God. He had neither fa- 
ther nor mother nor child in the priestly office. Christ was 
of this order; he was not after the fleshly order. He did 
not come to the priestly office by fleshly descent ; he came to 
it by virtue of his spiritual relations to God — a priest of the 
most high order. The Levitical priest came to the priestly 
office at the age of thirty years and went out at the age of 
fifty. (Num. 4: 26.) Melchisedec did not get a legal time 
to begin and another to go out of the priestly office. He 
was a priest during life, so typified Christ. Macknight 
says : "Was without father and without mother as a priest, 
so that he was not of priestly descent, and without geneal- 
ogy in the Scripture, consequently there is no evidence that 
he was related to Abraham in any respect. Moreover, hav- 
ing neither beginning of days nor end of life as a priest, 
but being made a type of the Son of God, he remained a 
priest all his life." This is the almost universal conclusion 
in reference to the Scriptures. A few claim that Melchis- 
edec was Christ himself. This we suppose to be the idea of 
those brethren. D. L. 

PRIESTS AND LEVITES, AGE OF. 

Brother Lipscomb: I wish to call your attention to a statement in 
the Gospel Advocate in answer to Brother Fuqua. You state that 
"the Levitical priest came into the priestly office at the age of thirty 
years and went. out at the age of fifty." Is not this a mistake? Was 
there ever any specified age at which a priest went into office or out? 
Were any except the family of Aaron priests under the Jewish dis- 
pensation? Were the Levites chosen from thirty to fifty years as 
priests, or were they the servants of the priests? If your statement 
be correct, then I have been entertaining a wrong opinion for many 
years, and, if wrong, wish to know. I am sure if you are wrong you 
wish to be right. 

Our brother is right as to the priests proper, and I am 
wrong. There is no specified age at which the priests be- 
gan or closed their services in the temple. They were, 
doubtless, raised to the service from childhood. The Le- 
vites are usually called helpers to the priests, but at times 
are called priests. They were a lower order of priesthood, 
we think, and did the offices of the priests when the higher 
order was not present, as at the restoration of the worship 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 509 

in the days of Hezekiah. (2 Chron. 25: 34.) Sometimes 
individuals were advanced from the Levitical order up to 
the priesthood, as in the case of Samuel. He was a Levite, 
but not of the family of Aaron. 

There are no specifications as to the age of beginning or 
closing the labors of the priest. In the New Testament 
time the high priest served for a year in the office ; but this, 
we think, was a corruption of the divine and primitive or- 
der. We suppose we fell into the error by accepting the 
popular idea without examination. It to some extent inter- 
feres with the popular idea concerning Melchisedec; but 
that is a difficult question to settle, and is, fortunately, of 
no practical benefit. D. L. 

PRINCE OF THE POWER OF THE AIR, THE. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Eph. 2: 2. Who is the "prince 
of the power of the air?" (2) Explain also Rom. 1: 18. In what 
way does God reveal his wrath from heaven? 

(1) The ''prince of the power of the air" is supposed to 
be Satan. But what is meant by the "power of the air," 
and in what sense Satan is prince of it, we may not be 
able to tell. There are more powers in the air than one, 
no doubt. But likely no one knows what particular power 
this message has reference to, and it is not worth while for 
any man to try to tell what he does not know. But when 
we abstain from all appearance of evil, we will be likely 
to abstain from every power that Satan can use or control 
that could injure us. Satan is evidently the one that is 
called "the prince of this world," and the one that every 
child of God should steadfastly resist. Satan can injure 
no one while he faithfully serves and trusts God. 

(2) The word of God reveals the fact that the wrath of 
God is against all unrighteousness and wickedness of wicked 
men, and tells plainly that all who persist in such a course 
through this life will be certain to be lost in eternity. The 
awful destruction God has already brought upon the wicked 
in past ages as recorded in the Bible furnishes full assur- 
ance of what will be the final doom of the wicked in eternity. 

PRINCE OF THIS WORLD, THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Who is "the prince of this world" 
spoken of in John 16: 11, and how is he judged? Is Christ ever 
called "the prince of this world?" 

"The prince of this world," we doubt not, is Satan. 
Christ is never called "the prince of this world." He is 
called "The Prince of Peace" in Isa. 9 : 6, and is called "the 
Prince of life" in Acts 3 : 15, and "a Prince and a Savior" 



510 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

in Acts 5: 31, and in Rev. 1: 5 he is called "the prince of 
the kings of the earth." But never is he called "the prince 
of this world." When that expression is used, Satan may 
be understood. 

"PRINCIPLES" OF CHRIST, WHAT ARE THE "FIRST?" 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Heb. 6: 1, 2 through the Gospel 
Advocate. What is it to believe the principles? What are the prin- 
ciples? What is the perfection meant here by the writer? What is 
the "laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works?" 
What are the dead tvorks that the writer has reference to? Does he 
mean that the items enumerated — viz., repentance, faith, doctrine of 
baptisms, laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and of the 
eternal judgment — are dead ivorks to the Christian? 

The Revised Version of this passage puts it thus: 
"Wherefore let us cease to speak of the first principles of 
Christ, and press on unto perfection; not laying again a 
foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith 
toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on 
of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal 
judgment." In the preceding chapter the apostle criticizes 
these brethren for not learning and advancing more in their 
knowledge and work of Christianity, but were still babes 
and needed to be taught again "the first principles of the 
oracles of God." In the chapter named he bids them to 
cease to speak on the first principles of Christianity, but to 
press on unto perfection, into a higher Christian life. They 
had laid a foundation for a Christian life by obeying the 
gospel and becoming Christians, and they should go on and 
grow and strengthen into Christian manhood. If people 
never get beyond faith, repentance, and baptism, they sim- 
ply remain babes, and never can have any strength, any 
manhood in the cause of Christ. The apostle does not 
mean that these first principles are, or will ever be, dead 
issues, but should be taught in their proper place ; but that 
if they do not grow into something beyond these, they would 
die spiritually, and that even the first principles would 
become dead to them if they did not advance in the Chris- 
tian life. He tells them, a little further on, that it is im- 
possible to renew again to repentance those who have been 
enlightened and then fall away, cease to learn and grow in 
their knowledge and practice of the truth. 

"PRISON," THE "SPIRITS IN," AND THE STATE BE- 
TWEEN DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please give an explanation of 1 Pet. 3: 18-20. 
(2) Also, where do the righteous go and remain from death till the 
judgment? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 511 

(1) This is the passage: "Because Christ also suffered 
for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he 
might bring us to God ; being put to death in the flesh, but 
made alive in the spirit ; in which he also went and preached 
unto the spirits in prison, that aforetime were disobedient, 
when the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah, 
while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight 
souls, were saved through water." This has been used by 
many as a foundation for the establishment of wild and vis- 
ionary theories of human wisdom. This passage teaches a 
plain, practical lesson ; and when we get that, we should be 
satisfied, and not torture it to fill human theories and opin- 
ions. Some conjure up the theory that while the body of 
Christ lay in the grave, his spirit went and preached to 
spirits of the dead in the unseen world, to give them a 
chance to be saved ; but, study the word of God as you may, 
there is not one passage in all the Bible that teaches that 
such a thing ever has been or ever will be done. This pas- 
sage teaches that Christ was put to death in the flesh, but 
made alive in or by the spirit, and that by or through the 
spirit he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. 
Our spirits are all imprisoned in our bodies so long as we 
live. It is only when death comes that our spirits are freed 
from this prison house of clay. The gospel has been 
preached to spirits in prison from the day of Pentecost, and 
is being done the same way till now. 

But some will ask: "Was the preaching of this passage 
done to spirits in the body, to living people on earth?" Cer- 
tainly so. But when, and by whom, and to what people? 
From 1 Pet. 1 : 11 we learn that the Spirit of Christ was in 
the old prophets that foretold the sufferings of Christ and 
his glories. From 2 Pet. 2: 5 we learn that Noah was 
a preacher of righteousness. Hence, evidently, the Spirit 
of Christ was in Noah; for the preaching of the passage 
under consideration was done in the days of Noah, while 
the ark was being prepared, as the passage plainly shows, 
and done to the disobedient. The passage does not say the 
preaching was done while the body of Christ was in the 
grave, but in the days of Noah. Hence the plain meaning 
of the passage is that Christ did the preaching by the Spirit 
through Noah; and that relieves the passage from the as- 
sumed theory that his spirit preached to the spirits in Hades 
while his body was in the grave, and this forever spoils the 
idea that this passage gives any favor to the idea of a sec- 
ond chance to the lost. 

(2) As to where the souls of the righteous rest from 
death to the judgment, there is no passage that seems to be 



512 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

intended to answer that question specially. Some, how- 
ever, contend that the righteous go direct to heaven when 
they die ; but those who so contend are stumped to explain 
the matter of a general judgment day, and why the right- 
eous are to be called back from heaven to be judged. There 
are passages that give perfect satisfaction on that subject. 
The incident of the rich man and Lazarus shows plainly 
that the righteous are safely cared for from the moment of 
their death. When Lazarus died, the Savior said he "was 
carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom." (Luke 
16 : 22.) Abraham was a righteous man, and he was safely 
cared for, and Lazarus was safely housed with him. We 
will not enter into any speculations as to where Abraham 
was ; but it is perfectly clear that he was all right and safe 
from all care and harm, and that is enough. He was where 
there was comfort and happiness. Paul had a desire "to 
depart and be with Christ ; for it is very far better." (Phil. 
1: 23.) Paul was inspired, and he knew that it was far 
better for the righteous to die and be with Christ than to 
remain in the trials and persecutions that he had to pass 
through ; and if it was far better for Paul to pass out of life 
and to be with Christ, it is certainly better for all the faith- 
ful. Paul said again to the righteous dead that they are 
fallen asleep in Jesus, and that signifies peaceful rest. In 
Revelation it is said: "Blessed are the dead who die in the 
Lord from henceforth : yea, saith the Spirit, that they may 
fest from their labors ; for their works follow with them." 
These passages show that everything has been provided 
that is needful for the righteous from the very moment 
they pass out of life till they pass through the pearly gates 
into the eternal city ; but the very reverse of all this will be 
true with the wicked from death on. 

"PRISON," PREACHING TO THE "SPIRITS IN." 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Pet. 3: 18-22; 4:6. A ques- 
tion has arisen here on this scripture. Some hold that Christ did this 
preaching through Noah while he was preparing the ark; others be- 
lieve Christ did it himself during the three days he lay in the tomb. 
Please give us your view on this scripture. Were those people dead 
in sin, or had they died a temporal death, and where was this preach- 
ing done? 

This is a question that we answer on an average four or 
five times in a year, and yet the answer makes no impres- 
sion. We answered it on pages 41, 136, 185, and 809 of last 
year, two of these rather lengthy discussions ; in 1905, five 
times. It discourages us that the answers are so little read 
or so soon forgotten. But we have never seen how a per- 
son can misunderstand it that would look at all the facts. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 513 

As introduction we quote : "Concerning which salvation the 
prophets sought and searched diligently, who prophesied 
of the grace that should come unto you: searching what 
time or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which 
was in them did point unto, when it testified beforehand the 
sufferings of Christ, and the glories that should follow 
them." (1 Pet. 1: 10, 11.) We quote this to show that 
Christ's Spirit in the ancient prophets did testify and teach 
his will to the people. Now consider this passage: "Be- 
cause Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for 
the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God ; [he] being 
put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit; in 
which [spirit] also he went and preached unto the spirits 
[now] in prison, which aforetime [when he preached to 
them] were disobedient, when the long-suffering of God 
waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, 
wherein few, that is, eight souls, were saved through wa- 
ter." (1 Pet. 3: 18-20.) The preaching was done to the 
spirits now in prison, by the Spirit, through Noah, when 
they were disobedient while the ark was preparing, and the 
result of that preaching was eight souls were saved by wa- 
ter in the ark. The result of the preaching was, eight 
souls — Noah and his family — were saved by water. This 
fixes beyond all doubt when and how the preaching was 
done. 

Now as to 1 Pet. 4:6: "For unto this end was the gospel 
preached [while they lived] even to the [now] dead, that 
they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live 
[in heaven] according to God in the spirit." This means 
the gospel through the prophets was preached to them who 
lived before Christ, that they might be judged as those who 
knew Jesus in the flesh, that they might live with God in 
the spirit. 

"PROMISE TO THE FATHERS," THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us your views 
on Acts 26: 6, which reads thus: "And now I stand and am judged 
for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers." Does it 
refer to the first or second advent of Christ? 

The promise referred to here, we are sure, had reference 
to the coming of Christ into this world to prepare a plan 
of salvation for sinful man. This promise of a coming 
Savior was made to the Jewish fathers, and they were 
looking for a Savior to come, and were many of them serv- 
ing God constantly, looking and hoping that the promise 
would soon be fulfilled. But they were looking for an 
earthly king to come in worldly splendor, pomp, and power 



514 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

and reestablish the Jews in their earthly power as in the 
days of David and Solomon. When Christ came in his spir- 
itual mission of love and mercy, they rejected him. Paul 
himself rejected and persecuted him for a long time, think- 
ing, as he says in the same chapter, that he ought to do 
many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth. 
But at this time he had become an apostle of Jesus, and was 
building up what he had once tried to destroy. His Jew- 
ish brethren were still rejecting Christ and the gospel, and 
were then persecuting Paul because he was preaching Christ 
and the resurrection from the dead. It was in his defense 
before King Agrippa that he said: "And now I stand and 
am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto 
our fathers: unto which promise our twelve tribes, in- 
stantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For 
which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews." 
The Jews to whom Paul was speaking were still hoping and 
looking for Christ, although he had already come ; but they 
had rejected him because he did not come as they were look- 
ing for him to come. The promise of Christ, when ful- 
filled, culminated in the resurrection from the dead. When 
Paul began to preach the gospel and the resurrection, the 
other Jews began to persecute him as he had persecuted 
others. He was, therefore, judged, persecuted, because he 
preached that the promise given to the fathers was fulfilled 
in Jesus and the resurrection. E. G. S. 

PROPHECIES OF MATT. 24. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain the following: 
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be 
darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall 
fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken." 
(Matt. 24: 29.) Also verse 34, where he (Christ) says: "Verily I 
say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all these things 
be fulfilled." Now, what I want to know is: Has this prophecy ever 
been fulfilled? If so, when? If not, what generation did he mean 
when he spoke the above language? 

It is perhaps not possible to tell with absolute certainty 
what the Savior meant by all of this prophecy. The ques- 
tion asked by the apostles involved more things than one. 
They had just asked: "When shall these things be? and 
what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the 
world?" All these points of inquiry, we think, were em- 
braced in the prophetic answer. He had just told them 
how completely the Jewish temple should be destroyed. 
The city of Jerusalem and the Jewish nation, as such, were 
destroyed and dispersed at the same time the temple was 
destroyed. Most of the prophecy, we think, pertained to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 515 

the destruction of the Jewish nation, city, and temple; 
while some, we think, pertains to the final end of time. 
According to Josephus and other historians, many wonder- 
ful things occurred at the destruction of the city of Jeru- 
salem, which occurred about the year seventy-one of the 
Christian era. Many signs were presented, both in the 
heavens and upon earth. Earthquakes, famines, and pes- 
tilences abounded for some time immediately preceding the 
destruction of that doomed city and temple. The expres- 
sion, "the coming of the Son of man," does not necessarily 
imply the coming in person of Christ, but his coming in 
fulfillment of his prophecies, which he did. So when he 
says, "This generation shall not pass away, till all these 
things be fulfilled," we think he meant the generation of 
men then living, because the destruction of Jerusalem oc- 
curred within thirty-seven years after the prophecy was 
uttered, and was literally fulfilled within the lifetime of 
that generation. And we doubt not that many similar 
things will occur at the final end of time, while some of the 
items foretold in this chapter will occur only at the end of 
time. The prophecy is a very wonderful one, and its ful- 
fillment not less so. We cannot undertake to tell with defi- 
nite certainty which of these prophecies pertained exclu- 
sively to the destruction of Jerusalem, nor which pertain 
alone to the final end of time, nor which to both ; but the 
fact that so many of them were literally fulfilled in the 
destruction of Jerusalem, within the lifetime of the people 
living when Jesus uttered them, is a very powerful evi- 
dence in behalf of the truth of the Bible. 

It is a matter of historical certainty that such a personage 
as Jesus lived at the time he is represented in the New Tes- 
tament as having lived, and that the books of the New Tes- 
tament were written at the time they are represented as 
having been written, and that, therefore, these prophecies 
were uttered by the Savior at the time represented; and 
then it is also a matter of historical fact that these proph- 
ecies concerning the destruction of the temple and of Je- 
rusalem were fulfilled as foretold. It does occur to us that 
no man can familiarize himself with these facts and then 
doubt the truth of the claims of the divine origin of Jesus 
of Nazareth and the divine origin of the Christian religion 
and the final accomplishment of all foretold in this or any 
other prophecy of the New Testament. E. G. S. 



516 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

PROPHECY AND OUR DUTIES. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Luke 21: 24-28, but 
more particularly verse 27. 

Verse 27 is: "And then shall they see the Son of man 
coming in a cloud with power and great glory." This pas- 
sage is usually applied to, and is supposed to have been ful- 
filled at, the destruction of Jerusalem. Most of the proph- 
ecy in the connection refers to the destruction of Jerusa- 
lem, and by many it is thought all does, and that this verse 
is only a figurative representation of the power and coming 
of the Son of God in fulfilling the prophecy concerning the 
utter ruin of Jerusalem and the Jewish state. Others 
think that the final end of time is, in these prophecies, 
linked in with the destruction of Jerusalem, and that this 
verse refers to the final wind up of all things. We will not 
assume the responsibility to say who is correct in the mat- 
ter. All our personal responsibility to God can be dis- 
charged, whether we are able to decide the time and cir- 
cumstances of the fulfillment of all the prophecies or not. 
Prophecies are generally figurative and hard to understand 
beforehand ; but, thanks to the Lord, our duties and respon- 
sibilities are made very clear to us ; and if we do these, all 
will be right with us. E. G. S. 

PROPHECY, THE MILLENNIUM, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb : I would like to have your opinion on Rev. 20. 
I would like for you to tell me what is the millennium and when it is 
to be. What is the meaning of the first and second resurrection? 

I do not know much about Revelation, especially about 
what the future types may mean or point to. I can only 
point out what these things are thought to mean. The 
millennium means a thousand years. From this passage 
and some others it is generally thought that at the end of 
the present state of affairs there will be a thousand years 
in which the devil will be deprived of his power, or chained, 
and that men will not be tempted to sin and will cease to sin 
during that time. After the thousand years have passed, 
the devil will be turned loose and will for a time deceive 
the nations and people of the earth and they will again sin 
for a season. The war between Gog and Magog prevails. 
The first resurrection is supposed to occur before the mil- 
lennium; the second, after it. That is about the common 
theory in its main points. I do not say I believe it or dis- 
believe it. I do not find enough concerning the matter to 
fix my faith one way or the other. I am no interpreter of 
unexplained prophecy. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 517 

PROPHESYING IN PART, KNOWING IN PART, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain 1 Cor. 13: 9-12. What is meant 
by we know in part? What is that which is perfect, and what is to 
be done away? To what does Paul compare his childhood and man- 
hood? When did we (or when do we) see through a glass, darkly, 
and when face to face? What did Paul mean by the expression: 
"Now I know in part: but then shall I know even as also I am known?" 

Paul, in 1 Cor. 12 : 14, is showing the office, work, and 
relative importance of spiritual gifts. Chapter 12 defines 
these gifts and concludes with the statement : "Yet show I 
unto you a more excellent way [than these gifts] ." Chap- 
ter 13 tells what this "more excellent way" is. It is more 
excellent than spiritual gifts, because these, without this, 
will not save. Then these gifts are temporal, partial, and 
must soon pass away ; while this "more excellent way" fits 
a man for heaven and is eternal. The gifts he mentions 
are: Speaking with tongues, prophesying, miraculously 
bestowed faith that would enable one to remove mountains, 
and knowledge and wisdom. These must all cease and pass 
away when the "more excellent way," the perfect will of 
God, is come. When the perfect will of God is come, then 
these gifts that were temporary and partial in their reve- 
lations would be "done away." They were "in part" be- 
cause a gift revealed only a part of the will of God to the 
possessor. All the gifts and all the revelations combined 
brought ''that which is perfect." When one possessed only 
these partial gifts, he spoke as a child and understood as a 
child; when the perfect will was come, he would put away 
this partial and childish knowledge and act as a man with 
the full revelation of God. With these partial gifts they 
saw "through a glass, darkly" — dimly; but with the per- 
fect will of God they could see clearly, as "face to face." 
With these gifts he knew only "in part ;" when the full will 
was come, he would know as had been fully revealed to him. 
This is the meaning of the expression : "Then shall I know 
even as also I am known." To be known of God was to 
know what God had made known to him. "But now, after 
that ye have known God, or rather are known of God," etc. 
(Gal. 4: 9.) To know God and to be known of God are the 
same. To know God is to know his will. Hence this pas- 
sage means : "I will know as has been made known to me — 
fully; I will know the full will of God that has been made 
known." Beza translates it: "I shall know fully when I 
am made to know fully; I shall know fully when the full 
will of God is made known." The scope and connection 
will allow no other meaning. 



518 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

PROVIDENCE, SPECIAL AND GENERAL. 

Brother Lipscomb : I would like to see a very pointed article from 
some one of the scribes capable of doing it well on "Special Provi- 
dence." Of course there is a general providence God exercises over 
all his works, and he will at the last day judge the world by Christ 
Jesus in righteousness; but do men, as a special act direct from God, 
receive any punishment? Let me hear from somebody on this subject. 

The Bible draws no distinction between special and gen- 
eral providences, as these terms are usually understood. 
There is no such idea as that God changes or interferes 
with the operation of the laws he has put in force to punish 
or bless man in any special case. The general provision 
is that all the laws of God work to the end of blessing all 
that are in harmony with them and destroying those who 
violate them. The idea of a special providence outside of 
the general laws of God arises from a failure to see that 
God's laws are perfect in their operations and meet all pos- 
sible contingencies that arise to punish and to bless with- 
out the intervention of special laws or interferences. If 
there are special interferences and manifestations of power 
to bless or to punish, it must be because the general law 
fails to reach such cases. If cases arise which the general 
law fails to reach, it is because the law is imperfect and 
does not meet all the contingencies of life; it is because 
God failed to make his law perfect (as the Psalmist says he 
did) : "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul." 
If so, it meets all the contingencies possible to arise in life. 
It meets every special case that arises, and in its working 
reaches every case as fully as God can reach it by special 
law or interference. God is always present in his laws. 
What is done through these laws, God does. Paul said: 
"God is the Savior of all men, especially of them that be- 
lieve." That means that those who believe come more 
fully into harmony with his laws than those that believe 
not, and so they receive the blessing of God more fully than 
others do. The answer of prayer requires no departure 
from the principle. The blessings of God flow through 
his laws to those that are in the proper state and condition. 
Tap the channel through which they flow, and receive just 
such blessings as you are fitted to receive. God is person- 
ally present in all his laws, to bless those who comply with 
them in spirit and in truth and to curse those who refuse 
to comply with them. God is all-wise and all-powerful. 
He sees the end from the beginning. Eternity, past and 
future, is an everlasting present to him, and he provides 
for all contingencies that arise in the onward march of his 
forces. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without a Fa- 
ther's care, and the hairs of our head are numbered. Be- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 519 

cause we fail to see and understand how the laws of the 
spiritual and material world interlace and harmonize with 
others, all composing parts of one harmonious whole, we 
are not to conclude that they are not such. God is in all 
his works. 

PUBLIC PRAYER. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please give us a lesson on prayer. A brother 
refused to lead in prayer, saying that we had no authority for public 
prayer; that the Savior taught his disciples to pray in secret. 

I do not know any law, human or divine, to prevent one 
displaying his ignorance and folly when he desires to ; and 
most generally when one thinks he is wiser and smarter 
than the rest of the world, he desires to do this. While it 
is true Jesus teaches his disciples both by precept and ex- 
ample to pray in secret, one is very ignorant of the Bible 
that does not know they are also taught to pray in the pub- 
lic assembly. The examples and admonitions are too nu- 
merous to mention, but a few may be given. Solomon stood 
upon his knees and prayed before the assembled nation of 
Israel at the dedication of the temple. (1 Kings 8 : 22-54.) 
Elijah prayed in the presence of the king, people, and four 
hundred prophets of Baal; and God heard and answered 
his prayer. This was praying before pretty bad sinners, 
too. (1 Kings 18: 27-46.) From the beginning of the 
tabernacle service there were hours when all the people 
assembled for prayer at the temple. It was continued un- 
til the days of the apostles. When Zacharias, the father 
of John, was offering incense within the temple, "the whole 
multitude of the people were praying without at the time of 
incense." (Luke 1: 10.) Jesus prayed frequently in the 
presence of his disciples and in the presence of the unbe- 
lieving Jews on several occasions, once at the raising of 
Lazarus (John 11: 41), then on the cross. The apostles 
and disciples engaged in public prayer when Matthew was 
chosen. (Acts 1: 24.) All the baptized on Pentecost con- 
tinued steadfastly in prayers. (Acts 2: 42.) Peter and 
John went up to the temple at the hour of prayer. This 
was the hour in which the unbelieving Jews met to pray. 
They went to participate in this service. They prayed in 
the assembly, and the place was shaken. (Acts 4: 31.) 
When the seven were appointed, prayer was made in the 
whole assembly. Stephen stood on his knees and prayed 
in the presence of and for the wicked Jews that stoned him 
to death. (Acts 7: 60.) 

In these and other specific cases of prayer other Chris- 
tians and persons not Christians are mentioned as present. 



520 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The frequent mention of the worship, of which prayer is an 
item, without specifying it, renders it certain that none 
were excluded from the worship who desired to be present, 
nor did any refuse to worship God because of the presence 
of any one. D. L. 

We have queries from two or three different persons 
asking as to the propriety of praying in mixed assemblies — 
saints and sinners. This question is based on the supposi- 
tion that the apostles and early teachers did not preface or 
close their addresses with prayer when preaching to the 
multitude. On occasions I feel sure they did not offer audi- 
ble prayer when preaching. I do not think on the day of 
Pentecost there was any formal prayer or opening service. 
The coming together of the people and their wonder at the 
phenomena demanded an explanation. It was proceeded 
with at once and resulted in the sermon preached. Because 
it was not done there is no evidence it was not done else- 
where. I think the apostles never purposed to establish a 
ritualistic order of service, and we fall into a fixed order 
for all occasions that often degenerates into mere form of 
worship. This destroys freshness and zest and causes us 
to lose the power of interesting the people. It dulls our 
earnestness and keeps us in a ritualistic rut. It would be 
better to have no set or fixed form of preaching to the world. 

But the question is really this : Is it right for Christians 
to pray when they meet together to worship, and is it wrong 
to admit those not Christians to be present at this service? 
It assumes this form because almost all of our preaching is 
connected with the worship of Christians. I need not ar- 
gue it is right for Christians to assemble together, confess 
their faults one to another, and pray one for another. I 
am free to say, too, that the absence of the world and 
those not in full sympathy with such service greatly pro- 
motes the freedom in confession of wrong and the confidence 
and simplicity in approaching God in prayer, and seems to 
me to promote the heartiness, freedom, and warmth of the 
service. On the other hand, the sinner is frequently bene- 
fited by the attendance at the service. He is touched with 
a sense of his guilt before God, and through the worship 
of saints he is brought to Christ. 

But we are not left to conjecture, reason, or inference in 
the matter. Christ on the cross prayed in the presence of 
his crucifiers. Stephen also kneeled down in the presence 
of those who were stoning him to death, and with a loud 
voice prayed: "Lay not this sin to their charge." (Acts 
7: 60.) The apostles prayed in the presence of the multi- 
tude, and the house was shaken. But it is certain that the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 521 

church in its meetings for worship engaged in prayer. 
(Acts 2 : 42.) They were in prayer and breaking of bread. 
Peter and John went to the temple at the hour of prayer. 
The brethren were assembled together, praying for Peter 
and John in prison, when Rhoda went to listen and found 
Peter. The accounts are frequent of prayer when the dis- 
ciples met together for worship. Now, the question is: 
Were the unbelievers admitted to these services? In 1 
Cor. 12-14 Paul is instructing chiefly how to behave in 
worship, and chapter 14 is especially devoted to the worship 
of the church. While prayer is not mentioned, it is certain 
that prayer constituted a part of that worship. "If there- 
fore the whole church be come together into one place, and 
all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are 
unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are 
mad ? But if all prophesy, and there come in one that be- 
lieveth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is 
judged of all: and thus are the secrets of his heart made 
manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship 
God, and report that God is in you of a truth." (Verse 23.) 
Now, the point is this : Here the church is assembled for 
worship ; prayer is a part of the worship ; unbelievers are 
present, and by that worship are convinced and constrained 
to worship God. If one unbeliever may be present, ten 
may, one hundred may; and this makes a mixed or public 
assembly in which the Christians engaged in worship. 

While we regard it a misfortune to have fixed formalities 
in religion, it is right for Christians assembled for worship 
to pray. It is right to do this when unbelievers are present. 
There is no danger of making too strong an impression in 
favor of prayer. None of us are enough the children of 
prayer. Christ, the sinless one, prayed ; and God strength- 
ened him in prayer. If he strengthened him, how much 
more do we need the nearness to God — the strength, the 
helpfulness that comes only through prayer? The burden 
of prayer must be rendered in secret when alone with God, 
yet it is our duty to come together with our brethren to 
pray and worship God ; and we must do this even if the 
world assembles with us, only being careful that we pray 
not to be heard of men. This caution is needful only on the 
ground that we pray in the presence of the world. D. L. 

PUNISHMENT, CAPITAL. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is capital punishment in harmony with divine 
law? 

God laid down the law for man in the beginning: "Whoso 
sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed." 



522 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

(Gen. 9: 6.) This was the general law God gave for the 
government of the world, and it is in harmony with the will 
of God that the man should be executed who is guilty of 
murder; but God has not made it the duty of Christians to 
execute judgment upon them. " Vengeance is mine, I will 
repay, saith the Lord." Return good for evil. While this 
is true of the Christian, he has ordained the powers that be 
as his ministers to execute wrath on those who do evil. 
The children of God can take no part or lot in the work. 
Yet human governments will do it. 

PUNISHMENT AFTER DEATH— WILL IT END? 

Please explain the terminus, if there be anything of the kind indi- 
cated, in the punishment spoken of by the Savior in Matt. 25: 31-46. 
We ask this for the benefit of our Universalist friends, who tell us 
that it has "an end, and is used as a means to purify the wicked and 
finally fit them for heaven." 

The punishment terminates exactly when the rewards 
spoken of end. "These shall go away into everlasting pun- 
ishment: but the righteous into life eternal/' The same 
word in Greek is connected with the punishment and the 
life. In the revised Testament both are translated by the 
word eternal. This is right. The space that measures the 
life is the same that measures the punishment. 

The word translated everlasting exhausts the time of the 
institution or period to which it refers. As examples: 
When it was said a man should be king forever, or always, 
it meant he should be a king through the entire period of 
his life; when it was said certain things should exist for- 
ever among the Jews, it meant they should exist to the end 
of the Jewish state ; when it is said an earthly kingdom shall 
exist forever, it means that it shall exist so long as the 
earthly state of man continues. It exhausts the period to 
which reference is made. When anything of the future 
state is affirmed to be eternal, or everlasting, the duration 
of that thing must exhaust the future spiritual state. As 
that state has no end, that which is said to be eternal in 
that state — whether of joy or sorrow, life or punishment — 
must have no end, must continue so long as the state con- 
tinues. The eternal years of God alone measure that state. 
Whatever is eternal in that state must exist as long as the 
years of God, which measure the state, endure. When 
punishment in the future state is said to be eternal, it must 
continue through the years of God. 

The idea that punishment purines anything is not in the 
Bible. Punishment checks wickedness in its course, makes 
man stop and think, makes him see the folly of his course ; 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 523 

and when he stops to think, then God offers him the love of 
Christ, his own mercy, and the blessings that pertain to 
the service of God to induce him to turn and live a pure 
life. Then God forgives the sin and washes him, makes 
him clean and pure, accepts him as his child, and clothes 
him with his own robes of righteousness that he may dwell 
in the house of God forever. 

This world is the scene of probation. Here God presents 
and inflicts punishment on sin. He offers the rewards that 
pertain to obedience to God. He brings to bear his own 
threatenings and promises; he presents the life and truth 
of the Son of God, the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the work 
of the church, the influence of the good of earth, the warn- 
ings from the spirit land that abound in his word. Then 
the providences of this life work to bring men to repent- 
ance. ' If man rejects these, he passes into the future state, 
where probation ceases, where divine love no longer in- 
vites him to repentance, where the Holy Spirit does not 
dwell, where no church exists, where no good associations 
are found, where Christ the Savior never goes, where only 
evil influences surround, where the spirits of evil men and 
demons, waxing worse and worse, are the only companion- 
ship. In a word, he passes into a state where all the good 
influences and associations are withdrawn and where all 
the evil influences and spirits of the universe are concen- 
trated to work out their own eternal ruin. If a man will 
not repent here, how can he repent there ? 

PUNISHMENT, DEGREES IN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will there be different degrees of reward and 
different degrees of punishment in eternity? If not, what does Paul's 
language mean in 1 Cor. 3: 8, 11-15, also the language in Dan. 12: 3? 
Does Daniel mean that one will receive a greater glory than the 
other? If so, is not that a difference of reward? Concerning pun- 
ishment, do the following scriptures refer to eternity: Matt. 10: 11- 
15; 11: 21-24; Luke 12: 47, 48; 20: 46, 47? 

I do not know that it is important that we should have 
definite and fixed ideas on the question propounded or not. 
It is a question that never gave me any trouble, although 
I have not held any fixed ideas on the subject. God is the 
same yesterday, to-day, and forever. As he deals with 
beings in one state or condition, he deals with them in all 
states or conditions, modified only by the capacities and 
spirit of the beings. Here beings are in a state of proba- 
tion and trial. They are being tested, tried, and their fit- 
ness or unfitness for good is being proved. Here each one 
is tried and proved ; each is rewarded according to his abil- 
ity and fidelity. Those with more ability and fidelity re- 



524 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ceive the greater reward. I take it they will enter the fu- 
ture state much as they leave this. But in the future state 
of the good no temptations to go wrong will be felt. So all 
in that state will attain to the highest good their capacities 
will permit. Different capacities will probably attain to 
different degrees of good ; but all doing good unmixed with 
evil, each will attain the highest good possible to it. Then 
it is not true that a specific reward apart from the service 
is given for service. God so ordains that the service per- 
formed works its own good or evil. Heaven is the out- 
growth of service in the laws of God ; hell is the product of 
violating the laws of God. If it were possible, obedience to 
the laws of God would change hell into heaven. Disobe- 
dience to the laws of God would transform heaven into hell. 
Each one in this way makes his own heaven or his own hell. 
I take it, each one makes his own measure of heaven or hell. 
I think the passages referred to illustrate principles that 
obtain both in this world and in that to come. 

Brother Seivell: Please give me an exegesis of Luke 12: 47, 48. 
Does it teach degrees of punishment? 

The verses you name are as follows: "And that servant, 
who knew his lord's will, and made not ready, nor did ac- 
cording to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes; but 
he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be 
beaten with few stripes. And to whomsoever much is 
given, of him shall much be required: and to whom they 
commit much, of him will they ask the more." These 
verses show that people will be responsible for their ability 
and for their knowledge of the will of God, and that those 
who know the will of God, and do it not, will be punished 
more severely than those who do not know it; also that 
men are responsible for the use of the blessings and the 
privileges given them. Jesus taught the same idea when 
talking to the cities wherein most of his mighty works 
were done, and yet they did not repent. He said : "Woe 
unto thee, Chorazin ! woe unto thee, Bethsaida ! for if the 
mighty works had been done in Tyre and Sidon which were 
done in you, they would have repented long ago in sack- 
cloth and ashes. But I say unto you, it shall be more tol- 
erable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgment, than for 
you." (Matt. 11: 21, 22.) These passages only show the 
fact that there will be a difference, but do not tell us how, 
nor to what extent the differences will be graded. So that 
is his business. All will be lost that disregard the gospel, 
and that will be bad enough. We ought, therefore, to learn 
from these passages to be more diligent in doing God's 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 525 

will and to make our election sure, and lose no time in spec- 
ulation about things not specifically revealed. As to the 
character of these differences in punishment, there is room 
for much speculation, but it would be worth nothing to ws. 
Our safety is to believe what these passages say and keep 
close to the line of duty. 

QUESTIONS, MISCELLANEOUS. 

Brother %ipscomb : (1) Where a brother or a sister marries a sin- 
ner, does he or she commit sin? If they do, do not we, as Christians, 
commit sin in retaining them in the fellowship? Are they living in 
spiritual adultery? And if they do commit sin, what is the remedy 
to correct them? (2) Is it wrong to eat a common meal with a way- 
ward brother? If so, what about his wife's eating with him, and she 
a Christian? Would you be eating with him if he came to your house, 
or if you and he were at a neighbor's house and should eat at the same 
table, or would you have to go to his house to be eating with him? 
(3) Can a congregation of brethren and sisters withdraw from a 
wayward brother without a plurality of elders and deacons? (4) 
What harm is there in using bywords, and what scriptures are 
against it? 

(1) I think it is contrary to the spirit of the teachings of 
Christ and the apostles. I do not think a person is to be 
withdrawn from for every violation of the spirit of Chris- 
tianity. If we did this, we all would soon be withdrawn 
from, and no one would be left to withdraw from the oth- 
ers. This anxiety to cut off every one who falls into sin is 
itself against the spirit of Christianity. Christ illustrates 
the feeling the Christian should cherish toward his erring 
brother by the woman who lost one piece of silver, the shep- 
herd who had one straying sheep, the father with a prodigal 
son. They wished to find and save the erring ones, not to 
cut them off. Once married, they come under the laws of 
1 Cor. 7, and should not separate, save for the cause of adul- 
tery. The Christian in the case ought to try to convert 
the one not a Christian, and all the brethren and sisters 
should try to help in this work, and so solve the difficulty 
by saving both. 

(2) The duties growing out of the different relations 
sometimes seem to conflict. When this is the case, those 
growing out of the prior relation should prevail. The 
woman is under obligation to respect and honor her hus- 
band ; and while she ought to let him know when she thinks 
he does wrong and encourage him to do right, it is not her 
province to administer the discipline upon her husband in 
refusing to eat with him. 

(3) I think they can do it without any regularly -ap- 
pointed elders and deacons. In all work of a church with- 
out regularly appointed elders, somebody has to take the 



526 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lead in all acts of worship and in all that is done by the 
brethren. I do not see why they could not act in trying to 
save a wayward brother or sister from sin as well as in 
helping the poor brother or sister when in need. Let some 
one take the lead and all act according to the law of God. 

(4) There is a world of mischief in that question: 
"What harm is there in this or that?" The question should 
be: "What good is there in this or that?" If there is no 
good, there is harm, and it should be avoided. We should 
seek always to do positive good, and not merely that in 
which there is no harm. The habit is condemned in many 
expressions. "Let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, 
nay; for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." 
"Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give ac- 
count thereof in the day of judgment." This use of by- 
words and meaningless expressions is offensive to the pu- 
rity and simplicity of speech commanded in the Bible. 

QUESTIONS UNANSWERED IN THE BIBLE. 

Will you please answer through the Gospel Advocate what vow it 
was that Paul had in Acts 18: 18? In the latter part of the verse it 
says: "Took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, 
and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cen- 
chrea: for he had a vow." Also, in Mark 14: 51, 52, who was the 
young man that fled from them naked? 

You asked us this question a little too quick. We have 
not found out yet. Where the Bible speaks, we try to 
speak ; but where it does not speak, we try to hold our peace. 

RAH AB— WAS SHE A HARLOT? 

Brother Seivell: In James 2: 25 and Heb. 11: 31, James and Paul 
refer to Rahab the harlot. Is there any authority, anywhere or in 
any way, for rendering the Greek word pornee, which is here rendered 
harlot, by the word innkeeper? Was she an innkeeper or a prosti- 
tute, or both? 

The question you propound is a rather mixed one, and 
it is a rather difficult matter to reach a definite conclusion 
about it. The theories of prominent commentators are 
confusing rather than satisfying. The Hebrew word zona, 
which is the word applied to her, is rendered into Greek by 
the word pornee, and then into English by the word harlot. 
The Greek word pornee means literally a harlot, and is so 
denned by the Greek lexicons that I have at hand, by such 
words as harlot, fornicator. I find no direct authority for 
that word to be rendered innkeeper. The fact, however, 
that the two spies put up at her house and were entertained 
and concealed by her indicates that she was keeping some 
sort of tavern or house for public entertainment. But 
there is no legal way that I can see of getting entirely rid 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 527 

of the literal meaning of the word harlot as applied to her 
in the Bible. Some commentators try very hard to make it 
appear that the Hebrew word means an innkeeper. But 
still there stands the fact that it was translated into the 
Greek language by Hebrew scholars in the Septuagint ver- 
sion of the New Testament some three hundred years be- 
fore Christ and then written in the New Testament by 
Greek scholars. So I see no authority for changing the 
meaning of that word. But I do not see why that should 
be any serious difficulty in the case; for she became a be- 
liever in the true God when she heard about the Jewish peo- 
ple and the wonders connected with them, as is plainly 
shown by what she said to the spies, as recorded in the book 
of Joshua. (See chapter 2.) This shows that she was 
expecting the Jewish people to overpower her people, and 
exacted a pledge from the spies to show her kindness when 
Jericho should be destroyed, which was literally carried out 
in the execution of that event. Hence, at some time preced- 
ing the exercise of faith in the true God, she must have 
been to some extent a harlot, as is plainly indicated by the 
term given her in the Bible. But people that truly believe 
in God can repent and turn away from sin; and her faith 
is highly spoken of in the New Testament, even indicating 
that it was genuine and had produced a change in her life. 
The apostle Paul was for a good while a vile persecutor of 
Christians, regarding Christ a deceiver and impostor, and 
even admitting that he gave his voice against people that 
were put to death, thus admitting the guilt of murder ; but 
when he became a believer in Christ, he became one of the 
most godly men on record. Why, then, could not Rahab 
repent and change her whole life? As a matter of fact, 
after the fall of Jericho, she remained with the Jews and 
married a Jew, seeming to be a firm believer in the God 
of the Jews, and there is not a word of criticism on her life 
after the spies went to Jericho. Because she was at one 
time a harlot, that word was kept up, not meaning at all 
that she kept up her former corrupt life. There is nothing, 
therefore, to indicate that she continued that corrupt life a 
single day after she became a believer in the God of the Bi- 
ble ; but, on the other hand, all that is said of her after she 
became a believer in God indicates that she was as virtuous 
as were the Jewish women, living with the Jews, and as a 
faithful wife of a Jew, the rest of her life. 

REBAPTISM. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: There are persons who have been 
treading the dark road of sectarianism and have always opposed the 
teaching of God's word. Like Paul, they think that they ought to do 



528 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

many things contrary to the way of righteousness. They have been 
zealous toward God, but "not according to knowledge." Now, when 
such persons are converted and make the good confession of their 
faith in Christ (though they have been baptized), some of the breth- 
ren ask: "Why are they not baptized again, as those men who were 
improperly taught and baptized by Apollos?" 

The above question has been troubling many of the breth- 
ren for many years past, and doubtless will for many years 
to come ; for our surroundings are such that it will be con- 
tinually coming up with its round of perplexity. We know 
of but one scriptural way to decide the question, and that 
is for those who have been immersed to decide in their own 
minds whether they were immersed to obey the command 
of God or not. If they were baptized with the one pure 
design to obey God, no one can do more or better; but if 
they were immersed with an idea that it was merely an out- 
side matter, merely to get into a party or denomination, 
and no recognition of the authority of God in what they did, 
we think then their baptism amounts to no service to God 
at all; and when more perfectly instructed in the way of 
the Lord, such, like the twelve at Ephesus, ought to be bap- 
tized understandingly. We know of no other way to set- 
tle this question. It is not what we do in and of itself that 
saves us, but God promises that when we obey him he will 
save us; and our whole effort should be to obey him, and 
he will do the saving. E. G. S. 

REBAPTISM AND OTHER QUESTIONS. 

1. Is it necessary for a person to be reimmersed, provided he or 
she has been baptized by a Methodist or Baptist? 

2. Is it necessary for a person to understand that baptism is for 
remission of sins in order that baptism be valid? 

3. Is wind or spirit the correct translation of pnenma in John 3:8? 

4. Is the heart purified before or after baptism? 

The first design of baptism is to put a man into Christ. 
If it is necessary that the design, objects, results of bap- 
tism shall be known in order to the validity of baptism, the 
administrator, in asking the question, "Do you believe Je- 
sus is the Christ, the Son of God?" ought to add, "and that 
baptism puts you into Christ/' "and that baptism is for the 
remission of sins," and, as we are baptized for the dead, 
he ought also to add, "and that you are baptized for the 
dead?" The whole catalogue of results and fruits must be 
asked, because baptism is either acceptable to God or it is a 
sin in his sight. 

If it is a sin to be baptized without understanding when 
one of the blessings promised is received, it is a sin to be 
baptized without knowing when any other of them is. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 529 

The father frequently has an end in view in requiring a 
child to perform a certain act that is not even told the child. 
The command tests the willingness to obey. God blesses 
because we are willing to obey, not because we see virtue in 
the act. Baptism was clearly required as a test of our will- 
ingness to obey God ; but as our willingness to obey arises 
from our faith in God, baptism is a test of our faith in God. 

Christ said: "Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature. He that believeth [the gospel] 
and is baptized shall be saved." The only thing required 
in order to baptism is honest faith in the gospel, leading 
to a willingness to obey Christ in baptism. This willing- 
ness manifested is repentance. To stop and inquire if he 
believes in this, that, or the other result of baptism is to 
presumptuously add to the appointments or requirements 
of God. 

But if it is necessary that a man should believe that bap- 
tism is in order to the remission of sins in order to its valid- 
ity, it is the duty of him who administers baptism to be 
sure that he understands it before his baptism; and this 
question ought to be asked the candidate: "Do you believe 
that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that baptism 
is for the remission of sins?" God had the design of bring- 
ing men into Christ by baptism, and in Christ are found 
all the blessings that God bestows on his obedient children. 
The chief, leading cause on man's part should be to obey 
God. When he submits to it in obedience to God, he has 
done all God requires. To repeat the act when it has been 
done in obedience to God is to mock God's appointments; 
to mock his appointments is to trifle with God. As nothing 
is said of the administrator, when a man is baptized to 
obey God, he is acceptably baptized, no matter who admin- 
isters the ordinance. If he is baptized from any other mo- 
tive than the desire to obey God, his baptism is worth noth- 
ing, even though the apostle Peter or Paul should adminis- 
ter it. 

It is likely there will never be agreement as to whether 
wind or spirit is the proper translation of pneurna. The 
word pneuma is used nearly four hundred times in the 
Scriptures. This is the only time it is translated wind. 
In every other instance it is translated spirit. This at 
first sight would seem conclusive. But it in Greek does 
mean wind, and the connection must determine whether it 
means wind or spirit in any passage. In this passage it is 
connected with the word pneo — to blow. Pneo is used 
seven times in the New Testament, and always refers to the 
blowing of the wind. We are told by scholars it is always 



530 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

so used in Greek literature. It is never known to be con- 
nected with the speaking, revealing, or influence of the 
spirit. To translate it here the breathing of the spirit 
would be to give a singular — and, as many believe, unwar- 
ranted — meaning to pneo and to pneuma in connection 
with pneo. On this turns the whole question as to whether 
it should be translated wind or spirit. The weight of schol- 
arship is that pneuma, connected with pneo, ought to be 
translated wind. But, happily, no Scripture truth depends 
on the translation. 

The purification of the heart, like most works of God, is 
progressive. The heart embraces much more than we are 
accustomed to attach to the term. It embraces courage, 
fidelity, singleness of purpose. Peter (Acts 15: 9) says 
that God purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith as he 
had those of the Jews. But this does not declare the heart 
is made pure by the simple act of believing. Faith saves 
us in heaven, but only by leading us into the life that fits 
us for heaven, and so secures our salvation. Peter, writing 
to Christians, said: "Seeing ye have purified your souls in 
obeying the truth." (1 Pet. 1: 22.) This would indicate 
that the obedience to the truth, which is the obedience to 
which faith leads, purifies the soul. "And every man that 
hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure." 
(1 John 3:3.) This was addressed to Christians. James 
(4: 8), addressing Christians, says: "Cleanse your hands, 
ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye double-minded." 
We draw this conclusion : The purpose of the heart is made 
pure by believing. This must be before baptism. That 
purpose leads on to a purification of the heart in its 
thoughts, affections, service to God and duty to men, com- 
pleting the purification in the life work of the Christian. 
In this sense the heart is not purified before baptism, but 
it is the life work of the Christian. Paul (2 Cor. 10: 5) 
says: "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing 
that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and 
bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of 
Christ." This brings out the truth that the life work of 
the Christian is to cast down all imaginations and every- 
thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of Christ, 
and, casting these out of the heart, bring every thought of 
that heart to the obedience of Christ. No heart is actually 
clean and pure in the sight of God until the very thoughts 
and feelings and impulses of the heart are brought into 
subjection to the will of Christ. It takes a life work to 
accomplish this. Then I would answer the question thus: 
The heart is purified as to its purpose by faith before bap- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 531 

tism. The workings of the heart, like the life of man, is 
purified only by the constant daily effort to bring our lives 
and every thought of the heart in obedience to Christ. 
And this completed purification is accomplished by the 
Christian life after baptism; and too often the Christian 
life is so neglected that our hearts never become purified 
for a habitation of God through the Spirit. D. L. 

REBAPTIZED DISCIPLES, WHO BAPTIZED THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: I want an explanation of Acts 19: 
1-6. Did John baptize the disciples spoken of in this chapter, or did 
Apollos baptize them? 

John never was at Ephesus ; but Apollos was, and 
preached there. It is certainly more reasonable to sup- 
pose that Apollos baptized the twelve at Ephesus than that 
John did, who never was there at all. Besides, it was about 
twenty-five years after John was beheaded when Paul 
found those disciples at Ephesus; and as Apollos had just 
been there, there can surely be no doubt but that he bap- 
tized them. If they had been baptized by John, they evi- 
dently would not have been baptized again. But after 
John's day had passed, his baptism was worth nothing, as 
this passage plainly shows. It was good in its day, but 
worth nothing after Jesus ascended and sent down the 
Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. 

REBAPTIZED, WHY? 

Please explain why those disciples spoken of in the first part of 
Acts 19 were rebaptized, as we have no account of any others being 
rebaptized that were baptized unto John's baptism. 

The history of the twelve at Ephesus indicates very 
plainly that they were baptized by Apollos, and not by John. 
Moreover, when Apollos went to Ephesus, as recorded in 
the latter part of Acts 18, and preached the baptism of 
John, it was twenty years or more after John's baptism 
was ended and could be of no value to any one. As to those 
that were baptized by John or by the disciples before the 
crucifixion of Christ, there is no evidence that one of them 
was ever baptized any more. John's baptism was all right 
in its time and for the purpose for which it was ordained ; 
but after it had accomplished its design, and Christ, hav- 
ing risen from the dead, had commanded the apostles to go 
and "teach all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name 
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," 
John's baptism was no longer in force and had no more 
part in the gospel dispensation than Jewish sacrifices. 
Jewish sacrifices were valid in their time, and so was John's 



532 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

baptism valid in its day; but after its day had passed, it 
was worth nothing. Hence, those at Ephesus, who doubt- 
less were immersed by Apollos long after John's baptism 
was dead, had to be baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 

TT P Q 

REBAPTISM OF THE TWELVE. 

Please notice the word they in Acts 19: 5. I heard a prominent 
Baptist preacher say that it referred to the persons that John was 
talking to. 

The pronoun they in the verse referred to had reference 
to the twelve that Paul baptized at Ephesus. The history 
of the case is briefly this: Apollos had been at Ephesus 
before Paul got there; and although John's baptism had 
passed away, Apollos was not aware of it up to that time; 
and, being an earnest man, he made some disciples to John's 
preaching and had baptized them. Paul came soon after and 
found them, and asked them if they had received the Holy 
Spirit since they believed ; and they said they had not even 
heard of any. Paul then explained to them the nature of 
John's baptism ; and when he was through, having at the 
same time taught them the baptism commanded by the Sav- 
ior, they, the twelve, were baptized in the name of the 
Lord Jesus. The pronoun they cannot, according to any 
just construction of language, refer to the people that 
John taught, ^but to the twelve who had been taught John's 
baptism by Apollos long after it had ceased, who were then 
retaught and baptized by Paul — the same ones that re- 
ceived the miraculous gift of the Holy Spirit immediately 
after they were baptized through the laying on of Paul's 
hands. E. G. S. 

"RECEIVE HIM NOT INTO YOUR HOUSE," WHO? 

What is the meaning of 2 John 10? And who are the class of 
persons the elect lady was forbidden to receive into her house? That 
you may know my difficulty, I will state a case: A conference of the 
Lutheran Church was in session. Quite a number of preachers from 
a distance were present. A member of the church of Christ declined 
to lodge any of them at his house, giving this scripture as a reason. 
Does it apply to such a case? 

We once knew a Cumberland preacher — a good, earnest 
man, honest and faithful, but a strongly prejudiced man 
— who turned a preacher of the gospel off from his house. 
He was a hospitable and kind-hearted man. The preacher 
came to his house a stranger, on a cold, rainy evening, 
and asked for lodging for the night. It was cheerfully 
granted. After supper they began to talk, and toward bed- 
time he found the preacher was a "Campbellite." He had 
his horse caught, and told him he could not entertain the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 533 

teacher of such a heresy under his roof. It would be bid- 
ding him Godspeed. So he had at that late hour of night, 
in cold and rain, to seek other shelter. This occurred about 
the time we were born. Our Cumberland preacher and 
the brother in the above query understood this passage 
alike, and so acted. We are satisfied they were both wrong, 
and acted wrong under this false impression. The scrip- 
ture is: "For many deceivers are entered into the world, 
who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. 
This is a deceiver and an antichrist. Look to yourselves, 
that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but 
that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, 
and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. 
He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the 
Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and 
bring not this doctrine [that Jesus has come in the flesh] , 
receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed : 
for he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil 
deeds." The specific sin here spoken of was a denial that 
Christ had come in the flesh, or a denial that Jesus was the 
Christ. But it strikes us that the person here described 
was one who, while claiming to be a Christian, was dis- 
puting apostolic authority and denying the foundation truth 
of the religion of Christ. Our friends among the sects we 
do not think are of this class. We think they are honestly 
mistaken. They have a zeal of God not according to knowl- 
edge. Our Lutheran friends are much mistaken in some 
points of truth, and are bitter in their opposition to it, so 
far as we have met them; but as simply confused in their 
minds and ignorant of the truth, and especially as they do 
not come to us as brethren, it is our duty to kindly receive 
them and strive to show them the way of the Lord more 
perfectly. This seems to us to have been the treatment 
the primitive Christians gave to those doing contrary to the 
teachings of Christ through "ignorant unbelief." 

When one with a full knowledge of the truth turns from 
that truth, rejects the fundamental truth of our holy reli- 
gion, and still would come among us as a brother, claiming 
to be of us, yet subverting the weak and overturning the 
faith of the unstable, then this language of John to the elect 
lady would be appropriate. When a Christian entertains 
a Lutheran, no one understands that he is bidding him God- 
speed in building up Lutheranism. D. L. 

RECOGNITION, FUTURE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Page 687 of the Christian Hymn 
Book, No. 1151, is headed: "Shall we know each other there?" Is 
that song scriptural? I mean, is the sentiment therein expressed 



534 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

taught in the Bible? If so, be kind enough to refer to the chapter 
and verse teaching it. If not found in the Bible expressly taught, or 
if we cannot learn from the Bible that 

"We shall see the same eyes shining 
On us as in days of yore," 

and that our "mortal friends" will be recognized in heaven, is it 
proper for Christians to sing it? By giving your views on this sub- 
ject through the columns of your valuable paper in the thorough 
manner in which you are in the habit of doing on other questions, 
you will relieve the minds of many Christians who desire to sing with 
the spirit and understanding . 

There is no positive teaching in the Bible on the subject 
of heavenly recognition— whether we will or will not know 
each other; but there are some passages upon which we 
have formed and expressed the opinion that Christians that 
know each other in this life will know each other in heaven. 
There are mentions made in the New Testament of per- 
sonal identities in the eternal kingdom, as when Jesus says : 
"Many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit 
down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom 
of heaven." This passage is understood by many to indi- 
cate that these ancient worthies will be known and desig- 
nated by name in heaven; and if these be thus known in 
heaven, why not others? In the parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus they are represented as knowing each other 
after death, though one of them in hell and the other 
in Abraham's bosom; and while the parable was not in- 
tended to teach future recognition, it is argued that Christ 
would use nothing in a parable that could not be true in 
fact. I know it is argued from this parable that if we 
know our friends in heaven, we shall also know those who 
were our friends on earth who are lost, and that this would 
more than counteract all their joys over their saved friends. 
This, however, does not follow. We are to be made like 
Christ if we reach heaven, and he will not in eternity 
grieve over those who reject him and are lost, though he 
once loved all well enough to die for them. But when they 
willingly reject him and are lost, his love for them is ended ; 
and just so we, when made like him, will cease to love those 
who would not love our Savior. We will then be able to 
see clearly, without reference to relationship, the differ- 
ence between those who have loved the Lord and those 
who loved him not, and will through eternity approve the 
judgments of God; and there will be no sorrow, no tears, 
in heaven. So that if even the lost are recognized by the 
saved, there can be no grief over them, for grief will be 
unknown to the saved. Heaven is represented as a dwell- 
ing place, and the saved are to have bodies, spiritual bodies, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 535 

fashioned like the glorious body of the Son of God, when 
they reach heaven. All these things indicate society, and 
it would be hard to imagine how society could exist and be 
perfectly happy without personal recognition. We can, 
by our senses here and what the Bible reveals of heaven, 
form no idea of what heaven will be ; but, then, we cannot 
say that this is a positive certainty ; it is only an opinion ; 
but we think it a harmless opinion — one that will never 
lead any one to disobey the word of God, but simply an 
opinion that gives consolation to those who exercise it in 
this life. Those, of course, who entertain such an opinion 
can, as the expression of their opinion, sing the song you 
mention. Opinions are private property, and should never 
be urged upon any one as of any practical value. If others 
have a different opinion, let them exercise it. E. G. S. 

RECONCILE 2 KINGS 2: 11 AND JOHN 3: 13. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you kindly give an exposition of the fol- 
lowing passages, so as to reconcile the seeming contradiction? In 2 
Kings 2: 11 the statement is made that Elijah went up into heaven, 
and in John 3: 13 Jesus said: "And no man hath ascended up to 
heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man 
which is in heaven." And how could he speak of himself, then, as 
being in heaven? I do not doubt but that the passages are in har- 
mony and that my poor understanding is at fault. 

The explanation likely is found in the fact that the word 
heaven is used in the Bible to indicate different places or 
degrees of approach to God. There were the first to the 
seventh heavens. It is not probable Elijah or any mortal 
had ascended to the presence of God, whence Jesus had 
come and which was his home. Which is in heaven is ex- 
plained to mean he is like God — everywhere at once. Some 
think this last a statement of John made as true when he 
wrote after his ascension. But the former idea is the usu- 
ally received one. 

RECORDS, CHURCH, ETC. 

Brother Sewell: Please give us some plain lessons on some prac- 
tical matters — (1) the importance and necessity of keeping a church 
record, (2) weekly meetings, (3) church discipline — in fact, on all 
practical matters. 

(1) There is nothing said in the New Testament about 
church records ; but early additions were numbered and the 
number specified, and the possibilities are that there were 
records kept. It is often very satisfactory to keep a record 
of the names of the members and a record of the leading 
events of the church. Trouble may sometimes arise about 
the membership of certain persons that could be at once 



536 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

settled by reference to the record; and there is certainly 
nothing in keeping such a record that is out of harmony 
with the word of God. 

(2) We suppose the meeting of the disciples on the first 
day of the week is the meeting referred to. This is just as 
important and binding as any other requirement of the 
New Testament. The disciples at Troas met on "the first 
day of the week" to break bread, and Paul remained there 
through the week preceding and met with them, recognized 
that they were doing the will of God by thus meeting, and 
preached for them, breaking bread with them, and went on 
his way. The manner in which this assembling was men- 
tioned indicates clearly that it was their regular custom to 
meet thus on every "first day of the week." This custom 
was not of their own devising, but from God, as is plainly 
indicated by the recognition of the inspired apostle Paul. 
Had it not been from God, he would evidently have cor- 
rected them on it, as he did others on things they were do- 
ing that were not of God. So this may be taken as a matter 
of divine authority on the subject. Then in Heb. 10 : 25 
there is a positive command not to forsake the assembling 
of themselves together. This evidently means the assem- 
bling on the first day of the week to break bread, as that is 
the only assembling that is required in the church. To neg- 
lect this, therefore, is to neglect a positive requirement of 
Heaven, which can only be done at the expense of the sal- 
vation of the soul. Mention is also made in 1 Cor. 16 : 1 
of this regular meeting on the first day of the week, and is 
another instance of a recognition of it by divine inspiration 
as an appointment of God. And the elders of churches, 
who are the overseers of the church, should see to it that all 
the members attend these meetings. To neglect these 
meetings is to reject an important item of spiritual food 
that God has appointed for the growth and well-being of 
his people. 

(3) As to the matter of discipline in the church, that is 
emphatically required again and again, and the elders are 
the men to lead in this matter and see that it is done when 
needed, and done according to the word of God. Jesus gave 
directions on discipline in Matt. 18. In 1 Cor. 5 Paul gives 
positive command to the church at that place to discipline 
the man that had taken his father's wife, telling them 
plainly what to do with him. The Romans and Thessalo- 
nians and others were strictly commanded to look after vio- 
lators of the word of the Lord. Hence, discipline must be 
attended to, and the elders must be wide-awake on such 
matters. Finally, it is the duty of churches to read and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 537 

study the word of God closely and keep all its requirements 
rigidly, and the elders are God's appointed leaders in all 
these matters. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Is it right for a church to keep a 
church book and enroll the members' names? And if there is any 
scripture to condemn it, please let us have it. Is there any wrong in 
appointing elders to take the oversight of the congregation and to 
keep things in order? I ask for information for myself and for sev- 
eral churches in my knowledge. I think there is being some harm 
done in this part of the country by thinking it is adding something 
to God's will, which I do not understand to be the meaning of that 
passage in Revelation. 

As to the first question, we know of nothing directly on 
the subject. We are told in Acts how many obeyed the 
gospel on the day of Pentecost and at Solomon's portico, 
but we do not know whether their names were enrolled or 
not. We suppose that matter, like the house or place in 
which we are to meet, is left to the good sense of the 
churches, as to whether they will enroll names or not. If 
the church is agreed about it, we can see no more harm in 
enrolling names than in building a meetinghouse. But if 
either one causes strife and contention, better let them 
alone. No one's salvation depends upon his name being 
enrolled on a church book, and no one is made better by it ; 
and the mere fact that any one's name is on a church book 
is no evidence that he is a child of God. It is our obedience 
to the commands of God that makes us his children, and 
nothing else will. Our having our names enrolled on a 
dozen church books will not benefit or save us if we do not 
live the Christian ; and if we do that, we are safe, whether 
we have our names on a church book or not. As a matter 
of convenience, perhaps it is better to have a church book 
and enroll the names of the members, just as it is better as 
a matter of convenience to have a meetinghouse to meet in. 

As to your second question, there is certainly no wrong 
in appointing elders to take the oversight of a congrega- 
tion, as Timothy and Titus were directed to do the same 
thing. If any congregation has elders among them that 
are competent to take the oversight and are not doing so 
already, they ought to be appointed to the work; but if 
those elders are already taking the oversight and doing the 
work satisfactorily, we can see no meaning in appointments 
in that case. The meaning of the appointment is only to do 
certain work, not to install into office ; and the appointment 
is only needed to put those who are qualified for it into the 
work. Peter said to the elders that they must feed the 
flock of God, taking the oversight thereof. Here is a re- 



538 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

quirement of the elders to take — that is, exercise — the over- 
sight of the congregation ; and this was to be done willingly, 
not as lords over them, but to be examples to the congre- 
gation. And even the elders have no right to teach or do 
anything in the church only as the word of God directs. 

"REGENERATION," THE WORD. 

Will you please tell me what the word regeneration means in Matt. 
19: 28: "And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye 
which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man 
shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve 
thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel." Also explain Tit. 3: 5, 
which reads thus: "Not by works of righteousness which we have 
done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of re- 
generation, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." Do they mean the 
same? 

The word regeneration literally means a new creation, 
or new order of things. As used in the passages named, 
we think it means the new institution — the church, or king- 
dom, of God on earth. The apostles were to sit on thrones 
in the regeneration — that is, in the church. The apostles 
received their power, or authority, on the day of Pentecost, 
when they received the Holy Spirit and began to preach the 
word of the Lord as the Spirit gave them utterance. They 
then began to give the words that are to judge all Israel 
and all the world. Christ was then seated upon the throne 
of his glory in heaven, and his promise to the apostles was 
that when he should sit upon the throne of glory they 
should sit upon twelve thrones. These apostles took their 
seats on their thrones that day, and they are on them yet, 
and will be till the close of time. We are, therefore, to 
look to them for all authority in religion. The words of 
the apostles must be an end to all controversy in matters 
of faith and practice. In the third chapter of Paul to Titus 
we think the word regeneration also means the church, the 
new institution. The church has a washing, and that wash- 
ing is baptism. 

REPENT, HOW DID GOD? 

Brother Sewell: In Gen. 6: 6 it is said: "It repented the Lord that 
he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." 
How is this to be understood? 

I do not know a thing in the world about it beyond what 
the passage plainly says. If the Lord did not mean just 
what it says, I have no means of knowing what it does 
mean. It says it repented him that he had made man, 
and said this when the whole world except one family had 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 539 

gone so deeply into sin that a flood was predicted to destroy 
them; and so the flood did come and destroyed all, except 
Noah and his family. I have never learned how to theorize 
on the meaning of the word of God beyond what it says. 

REPENTANCE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please give through the Gospel 
Advocate the meaning of the word repentance as used in the Bible, 
for the benefit of myself and others. 

Repentance is used in two senses in the Bible. It means 
simply sorrow, or regret. The sorrow of the world, or a 
worldly sorrow, works death ; but a godly sorrow works a 
repentance not to be repented of. 

The repentance commanded by the Savior means a turn- 
ing from sin. The heart first sorrows and turns from sin. 
The purpose is changed, or we determine with God's help 
to sin no more. Repentance is perfected in actual turning 
from sin, in transferring our bodies and the different mem- 
bers of the body from the service or practice of sin to the 
service or obedience to God. To turn in heart, soul, and 
body — or to turn in the affections, the purpose, and the 
life — from sin or disobedience to humble and earnest obe- 
dience to God is repentance. A man may repent or change 
his heart, and stop ; he may go on and change his purpose, 
yet fail to carry it out in practice. Man only thoroughly 
and scripturally repents when he changes his affections, his 
purpose, his life, from the service of the evil one to the serv- 
ice of the living God. There is a time when man turns 
himself about — turns his face toward God. Then he only 
fairly starts in the work of repentance. He is then said to 
have repented. But repentance is completed only when the 
last sin has been overcome and turned from and when man 
is brought into a state of perfect obedience and complete 
reconciliation with God. Repentance is then recognized as 
a continued process into which we enter. Hence it is said 
that John baptized unto (into) repentance — that is, he 
baptized into the state, or work, or life of repentance to- 
ward God, into the work of turning to God. This is prac- 
tical repentance. D. L. 

REPENTANCE AND RESTITUTION. 

Brother Lipscomb: If a man who is not on speaking terms with 
one of his acquaintance should hear the gospel, and, believing it to be 
his duty, should obey it without first becoming reconciled to his neigh- 
bor, would his repentance before baptism be valid? 

If he went and sought reconciliation afterwards, it indi- 
cated he had repented. A man cannot await to correct all 



540 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of his former wrongs before he obeys God. That would be 
making God last and frequently postpone obedience because 
he could not correct the wrongs he had done his fellow man. 
Then he might not be wholly to blame for getting into a 
childish fit of not speaking to some one else. That is a 
childish fit, no matter who indulges it. Repentance toward 
God means sorrow for all his sins against God, and a sin 
against a fellow man is a sin against God. But it does not 
mean that he should wait to learn of all his wrongs and 
correct them before he is baptized. It does mean he will 
change his whole life and correct all the wrongs he is able 
to correct. When John told the sinners to bring forth 
"fruits meet for repentance," he did not tell them to await 
and do this before they were baptized ; but after they had 
been baptized they were to live a course that proved they 
had repented. Then the brother may not have been to 
blame wholly or in part for the bad feeling existing. He 
could only remove the cause so far as he had done wrong, 
and so encourage the other to do right. But a man's faith 
and repentance are not genuine unless they lead him to 
confess all of his wrongs to his fellow man and seek to cor- 
rect them. More stress should be laid on the practical re- 
sults of repentance than is done in our teaching. 

REPENTANCE, FRUITS WORTHY OF. 

Brother Lipscomb : As many sectarians quote Matt. 3 : 8 in sup- 
port of their mourners'-bench theory, please explain why John told 
the Pharisees and Sadducees to bring forth "fruits meet for repent- 
ance." 

He told the Pharisees and Sadducees what he tells every 
one that comes to God. Every man is told when he is bap- 
tized into repentance to bring forth fruits worthy of that 
repentance. The Jews relied upon their being fleshly chil- 
dren of Abraham for salvation. John the Baptist preached 
the baptism of repentance toward God ; and when they were 
baptized, he warned them : "Now bring forth fruit in your 
lives that will show your repentance genuine, and no longer 
think to say, Abraham is our father; for I say unto you, 
that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto 
Abraham." This meant we must by faith become chil- 
dren of Abraham, and not rely on the fleshly relations. I 
suppose the difficulty arises from the idea that John re- 
fused to baptize these persons until they had brought forth 
fruit that proved their repentance to be genuine. But there 
is no ground for this idea. John baptized them and sent 
them forth to show their repentance by their godly walk. 
"There went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 541 

of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of 
Jordan, confessing their sins." (Mark 1: 5.) This em- 
braced Pharisees and Sadducees in common with other 
Jews. Luke (3: 7, 8) tells: 'Then said he to the multitude 
that came forth to be baptized of him, generation of 
vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to 
come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, 
and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham 
to our father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these 
stones to raise up children unto Abraham." Then he pro- 
ceeds to tell what each class shall do to prove his repent- 
ance genuine. Luke tells he said to the whole multitude 
that came to be baptized what Matthew says he told the 
Pharisees and Sadducees. He treated all alike. He bap- 
tized all who came, and told them : "As you have been bap- 
tized into repentance, bring forth in your lives fruit that 
will show your repentance." So God says to every one now 
who comes to the baptism of repentance. 

RESURRECTION, THE, WHEN? 

Brother Seivell: I have taken interest in your answers to corre- 
spondents through the Gospel Advocate, and would like to have your 
opinion on the resurrection of the dead. The Scriptures say but very 
little about it. I would like to have your views on this subject, as I 
think you capable of illustrating these points, and you will greatly 
oblige me in so doing. Will the resurrection be immediately after 
death, or when will it be? Will this change be in a moment, "in the 
twinkling of an eye," according to 1 Cor. 15: 52, or similar to the 
gradual growth of grain as I understand it, in verses 42-44 of the 
same chapter? As the resurrection is illustrated by the growth of 
grain, if the whole grain dies, there can be no resurrection to it; but 
there seems to be a germ in the grain that never dies. When the 
grain appears to die, there is a germ gradually growing from it and 
grows up in a new grain. Is not the apostle's view of the resurrec- 
tion this : That when man appears to die, the germ of his future body 
begins to spring forth, according to 1 Cor. 15: 42-44? If the whole 
man dies in the first Adam, does not man lose all identity, and will not 
his future existence be an entire new creation? If so, how is he to 
realize any resurrection, as the resurrection state winds up all things 
with us in this world? 

1. We do not believe the resurrection will be immediately 
after death. The Scriptures teach that there will be a gen- 
eral resurrection of all the righteous dead at one time. 
Paul to the Thessalonians, when speaking of a general res- 
urrection, says : "For the Lord himself shall descend from 
heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and 
with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise 
first." (1 Thess. 4: 16.) The expression, "the dead in 
Christ," means all the dead in Christ ; and this is all to take 
place at the second coming of the Lord. This passage 
shows that at the second coming of the Lord there will be 



542 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

a general resurrection of all the dead — first the righteous 
and then the wicked. 

2. The change spoken of that will be in a moment has 
reference to those that will still be living when the Lord 
comes again. Paul says: "We shall not all sleep [that is, 
not all die], but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in 
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump." The saints, 
therefore, who shall be living when Christ comes again will 
be changed in a moment, without sleeping in their graves 
as those who die before the Lord's second coming. 

3. The resurrection will evidently not be a gradual thing, 
but will take place suddenly when the last trumpet sounds. 
Paul was not illustrating the manner of the resurrection, 
whether at once or gradually, but rather this : That though 
the body dies and returns to the dust, the man will rise 
again and receive a new body, just as when a grain of corn 
is planted it goes to the earth and a new grain is formed. 
The Christian will receive a new body that will be fashioned 
like to the glorious body of the Son of God. And as there 
is a living principle in the grain that does not perish, so 
there is a living principle in man that does not perish, but 
will be a personal identity in the resurrection, as the Sav- 
ior taught when he said that many should come from the 
east and from the west and sit down with Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob in the kingdom of God. As Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob are to be personal identities in heaven, so will 
others, as is also shown in the case of the rich man and 
Lazarus, who still existed after death as the same persons. 
We will, therefore, not lose our personal identity, though 
the body goes to the dust; and the resurrection will not be 
a new creation, but a resurrection, as the word implies. 
The very same persons will be raised again, but the right- 
eous will have spiritual instead of natural bodies. 

E. G. S. 
RESURRECTION BODY. 

Brother Seivell: In your reply to the query of Charles A. Scott 
in regard to the resurrection of the dead, you say: "The very same 
persons will be raised again, but the righteous will have spiritual 
instead of natural bodies." Now, are we to understand from this 
language that the righteous only will have spiritual instead of nat- 
ural bodies, and that the wicked dead will be raised in mortality? 

We do not undertake to say anything about the bodies of 
the wicked in the resurrection. The apostle Paul was 
speaking of the righteous when he said: "It is raised a 
spiritual body." He did not say with what kind of a body 
the wicked would come from the grave; but it is very cer- 
tain that they will not have spiritual bodies in the same 
sense that the righteous will. Jesus said in regard to the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 543 

punishment of the wicked, "Where their worm dieth not, 
and the fire is not quenched ;" and that does not look much 
like mortality. This indicates about as much as any pas- 
sage we know of regarding the future condition of the 
wicked, and beyond what the word of God plainly says we 
are not disposed to speak. Our opinion in the matter 
would be worth nothing. But as to the righteous, the 
word of God is plain. E. G. S. 

REVELATION—PART AT A TIME. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seiveli: Will you give your explanation 
through the Gospel Advocate of the following scripture? "But when 
that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done 
away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a 
child, I thought as a child : but when I became a man, I put away 
childish things." (1 Cor. 13: 10, 11.) 

The passage, as we think, has reference to the develop- 
ment of God's revelations to men. The Bible was given to 
man in parts— a little at a time. The giving of the Old 
Testament spread over a period of more than a thousand 
years, from Moses to Malachi, giving a little at a time, as 
the people were ready for it and needed it. No one man 
was ever so inspired as to know the whole will of God at 
once. Just so much was given to one man at a time as was 
needful for him to develop. Neither Paul nor Peter ever 
at any one time had the whole new dispensation made 
known to him at any one time. Just what they needed at 
any particular period or for any particular work was given 
them, and no more. Paul at one time only understood part 
of the Old Testament. He rejected all that part of it that 
pertained to the Son of God and persecuted his followers. 
He was then but a child in his knowledge of God's revela- 
tions. As he learned more and more of the new insti- 
tution, he grew until he became a man in knowledge of 
God's will to men. Ever since the new institution was 
fully revealed, the manhood state of God's divine revela- 
tions has been developed, and all who will may understand 
practically the whole. When the Christian has understood 
and practiced the will of God in this life and shall pass 
into heaven, into the divine presence of God, he will still 
know more of God and his ways and will; and we think 
possibly the apostle had this also in view in the passage 
mentioned. 

REVELATION, THE BOOK OF, AND SPECULATIONS ON. 

I want to know what you know about the two witnesses, or proph- 
ets, that are spoken of in Rev. 11, whose dead bodies lay in the 
streets three and a half days and were not allowed to be buried. 
Who was it that killed them? 



544 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

We do not know much about the witnesses nor their dy- 
ing or who murdered them ; but we do know we never get 
inquiries on these speculative questions or about the state 
of the dead from death to the resurrection from earnest 
men and women or from churches that are actively doing 
their duty to save sinners and extend the Redeemer's king- 
dom on earth. Earnest, faithful hearts, striving to extend 
the kingdom of Christ, are not the soil out of which these 
speculations grow. If these men will try to lead and prac- 
tice and teach their fellow men the plain, practical duties 
of the Christian religion, they will find something that will 
give life and fervor to themselves and will kindle an inter- 
est for Christ in their neighborhood. 

RICHES AND SALVATION. 

Brother Sew ell: For the benefit of many readers, please answer 
the following questions through the Gospel Advocate: 

1. Can a person be saved in heaven who has an abundance. of this 
world's goods? If so, why did Christ command the young man in 
Matt. 19 to sell what he had, give to the poor, and follow him? Did 
Jesus demand more of him than he does of us? 

2. If a rich man can be saved, what does this language mean? 
"So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he 
hath, he cannot be my disciple." (Luke 14: 33.) The Revised Ver- 
sion says, "all his possessions. " 

3. We find in Acts 2: 44, 45; 4: 32-35 that this was done then. If 
this was not necessary, why did they do it, and why did the Lord have 
it recorded? Would the Lord have recorded a nonessential act of 
theirs? 

4. In 2 Tim. 3 : 16 Paul says : "All scripture is given by inspiration 
of God, and is profitable for doctrine," etc. For what, then, is it 
profitable, if it does not mean what it says? 

5. We are commanded to speak as the "oracles of God." Can we 
do this and not teach the above lesson? 

6. In Matt. 28: 19, 20, Jesus commanded the apostles to go, teach, 
and baptize the nations; then he says: "Teaching them to observe all 
things whatsoever I have commanded you." Now, the question is: 
Is not every approved observance by the apostles a commandment of 
Christ? If not, why not? 

1. It is a very easy matter to take extreme views on this 
or any other subject. Very many expressions like that 
concerning riches are modified by others. The command 
to the wife to obey the husband is modified by the higher 
obligation to obey God. It is better to obey God than men 
whenever there is a conflict. If a husband were to com- 
mand his wife not to follow Christ, then she had better 
obey Christ than her husband. So there are some modi- 
fications regarding this question. If a man allows his 
possessions to in any way hinder him from doing the will 
of God, he cannot reach the promise of a home in heaven ; 
but if a rich man will use his. money and his own life to the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 545 

honor of God, he can certainly be saved. Abraham was a 
rich man, and yet the Savior represents him as in a saved 
state. If, on the other hand, a man in any sense loves his 
riches more than he loves the Savior, he cannot be saved. 
As Mark records it, if a man trusts in riches, he cannot be 
saved. So a rich man can easily so use his money as to 
lose his soul, while a very poor man may strive so hard to 
get money that he may easily lose his soul. The matter, 
therefore, of a rich man being saved depends upon how he 
loves and uses his money and devotes his heart and life. 
There were rich men in the church in the days of Paul, and 
he gave warnings to them of the dangers that surrounded 
them in the love and use of their riches, as in his letter to 
Timothy. There are certainly very great dangers attend- 
ing the possession of wealth, but it is surely an extreme to 
say that a man cannot possess and so manage riches and so 
love the Lord above money as to be saved at last in heaven. 
The love and use of riches is the trouble, and it is so great 
that there are likely very few possessing them that so honor 
the Lord in their own hearts and with their riches as to 
secure for them an entrance into heaven; yet there is no 
need of taking extreme grounds on the subject. Paul says 
to Timothy: "Charge them that are rich in this world, that 
they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but 
in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." 
The passage certainly indicates that there were rich men 
in the church, and that if they would do as directed they 
might be saved. We are not told just why Christ com- 
manded the young man to sell all that he had and give it to 
the poor, but it is very evident that the apostles did not 
make that a condition of salvation when they went out to 
preach the gospel. Men with property came into the church 
at Jerusalem, and then sold their possessions and gave the 
money obtained therefor for the use of those in need ; but 
they were not required to give everything at once, as was 
shown in the case of Ananias and Sapphira. The land was 
theirs before they sold it, and the money was theirs after 
they sold it, as Peter told them. It was their complicity 
in deception and falsehood, and not in the fact that they 
did not give up all. 

2. The language in Luke does not mean that it was an 
absolute condition of salvation that a man should give up 
everything he had to become a Christian, but that if his 
possessions should in any wise intervene to hinder him from 
being a Christian, then he should give up all for Christ's 
sake. The church at Jerusalem made voluntary surrender 
of their possessions on account of the surroundings, but no 



546 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

law to that effect was enacted through the apostles. This 
practice afterwards ceased, and never was extended to 
other churches that we know of. 

3. These questions are in the form of an argument more 
than of a query, and are sufficiently answered in response 
to No. 2. It never settles any matter to ask questions 
where the Bible is silent. We are plainly told certain 
things, and they are matters of record ; but we are not told 
why the record was made or just why those things were 
done, only that it is evident that no common stock law was 
issued at Jerusalem. 

4. The scripture quoted is certainly true in every re- 
spect ; but many things are recorded by inspiration as hav- 
ing been done that were not matters of positive enactment 
then, nor are they now ; and such is the record of the breth- 
ren at Jerusalem giving up all to aid those in need. That 
and other passages show plainly enough that all Christians 
should hold all they have in readiness to be used for the 
Lord's cause if necessity demands it; but this was not a 
universal law that it should be done at once or under all 
circumstances. 

5. We can speak as the oracles of God speak and yet 
never teach that all disciples are to give up all and hold 
or possess nothing. Men could buy and sell and get gain, 
have homes to dwell in, and at the same time teach all to 
give liberally and not to lay up riches for moth to eat and 
rust to corrupt. 

6. This question is so broad and so indefinite it would 
be unwise to even attempt an answer. If he had specified 
some particular case or cases, then we might be able to re- 
ply; but it is quite certain that there are not many things 
that churches and Christians should practice as service to 
God that are left alone to apostolic example. Examples 
may explain things not very definitely commanded, but are 
not often left to take the place of precept. 

Brother Sewell: Is it taught in the Scriptures that a rich man 
cannot enter the kingdom of heaven if he obeys the woid of God? 

I do not know of any passage in the word of God that 
teaches that. On the other hand, the Bible teaches that all 
will be saved that faithfully obey the requirements of the 
will of God. But the word of God shows that riches are 
greatly in the way of obeying the word. If rich men will 
use their riches as the word of God directs, they can be 
saved, as well as the poor. The trouble is in the use of 
riches, and not in the fact that men have riches. No man 
will be condemned just because he has riches, nor will any 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 547 

man be saved just because he is poor. It is, therefore, 
the use that men generally make of worldly wealth that 
makes it so very hard for those that possess it to be saved. 
Rich people are so likely to use their money and property 
to the gratification of their fleshly propensities that they 
have neither time nor inclination to so far deny themselves 
of these fleshly indulgences as to lead the self-denial life 
that the word of the Lord demands at their hands. If rich 
people will deny themselves of all ungodliness and worldly 
lusts and use their riches as the word of God directs, they 
certainly have a chance to be saved as well as others. But 
no man can practice the self-denial and all the good works 
that a consecrated Christian life demands and at the same 
time give his heart and life to the hoarding and to the sor- 
did and fleshly indulgences of worldly riches. Hence, Je- 
sus, knowing these things, said: "How hardly shall they 
that have riches enter into the kingdom of God!" (Mark 
10: 23.) Again, he said: "How hard is it for them that 
trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God !" (Verse 
24.) So the trouble lies largely in the unscriptural use 
that people make of riches. No man can revel in the in- 
dulgences of a fleshly mind and at the same time "live so- 
berly, righteously, and godly, in this present world." (Tit. 
2: 12.) It surely is possible for a rich man to live thus, 
but he will have to lay aside the love of money and not set 
his heart on having money to hoard up or by means of 
which to indulge his fleshly propensities. He must learn 
to use his money as the word of the Lord directs, or it will 
cause the loss of the soul. There were some rich people in 
New Testament churches, but Paul said to Timothy: 
"Charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not 
high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but in the liv- 
ing God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy." (1 Tim. 
6:7.) This not only shows that there were some rich peo- 
ple in the church in the days of the apostles, but that they 
could obey and be saved, and were admonished to that end. 
But it is surely hard for them to deny the love and indul- 
gences of riches far enough to be saved. 

RIGHTING WRONGS, ETC. 

Brother Sewell: A sister walks disorderly, does not repent, and is 
withdrawn from. Afterwards she joins the Methodists, has a diffi- 
culty (or falling out) with a member of the original church; and 
after that she repents, comes back to the church of Christ, makes her 
acknowledgments to the church, asks their forgiveness, and is re- 
stored again. The brother she offended while she was with the Meth- 
odists says he cannot fellowship her because she had not made special 
acknowledgments to him. Did not her acknowledgments to the church 
under the circumstances cover all the grounds? 



548 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

If the sister under consideration did the brother alluded 
to any personal wrong in any way, she certainly ought to 
have made amends to him personally for it, if it was in her 
power to do so, and ought still to do so if she can. Genuine 
repentance certainly involves this much. But if her of- 
fenses were all of a public character and only involved the 
cause in general and no one individually more than another, 
then a general acknowledgment ought to have been satis- 
factory to all and a final end to the matter. Justice in full 
should always be done. E. G. S. 

ROD, COMING WITH A. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain the following: 
"What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in 
the spirit of meekness?" (1 Cor. 4: 21.) Does Paul mean a literal 
rod, or is the word rod synonymous with love and meekness in the 
same verse, and, therefore, a metaphor? Also, please explain the 
following: "And when he had made a scourge [whip] of small cords, 
he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; 
and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables." 
(John 2: 15.) "Made a scourge of small cords" — did the Savior use 
the whip? If so, upon whom — the changers or the sheep and oxen, 
or upon all to get them out of the temple? 

Paul used the word rod as a figure to signify rebuke, re- 
proof, or correction. Some of the church at that place 
were fanatical, and were not living as the Christian reli- 
gion requires ; and from some things in the letter, they had 
been making light of Paul's ability and authority; and 
when he asks whether they will that he come with a rod 
or in love and meekness, the meaning is : "Do you want me 
to come with rebuke and rigid discipline to correct your 
faults, or to come and correct them through love and meek- 
ness?" As to the scourge that the Savior used, we are not 
told whether he used it upon the men or upon their stock, 
or whether upon either. Most commentators that we have 
examined think he used the scourge on the sheep and oxen ; 
but their opinion is worth no more than the opinions of oth- 
ers. The Savior evidently manifested a degree of author- 
ity and firmness that caused those men to cower and give 
way to him, knowing that they were violating the proper 
use of the temple. When Jesus set out to do a thing, he had 
the power to do it, and men could not hinder. E. G. S. 

ROMANS, THE, AND THE JEWS. 

Brother Sewell: How long had the Romans been in authority at 
the coming of Christ? Did the Romans take them from their own 
country, as the Scripture speaks of the Jews' exile? Did the Ro- 
mans allow the Jews to still worship under Moses' law or not? Paul 
speaks sometimes as though he was a Roman, too. It or the freedom 
of it is spoken of as being bought with a price. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 549 

The land of Canaan had been for sometime under the 
control of the Romans when Christ came, but the Jews 
were allowed to worship God under the law of Moses ; and 
when the Jews rebelled against the Romans and Jerusalem 
was destroyed, the Jews were carried captives out of their 
own land and sold and scattered as slaves and otherwise 
and nevermore returned to their own land. This was 
about the year 70 or 71 of the Christian era. Paul was 
born in Tarsus, a city of Cilicia; and this city by Julius 
Caesar was made equal with Rome in freedom, and all born 
in Tarsus were born with all the privileges of Roman citi- 
zens, and it was with reference to this that Paul said he 
was free-born. In most places that were tributary to the 
Roman yoke the people were regarded as a kind of subjects 
or servants rather than citizens ; and the chief captain that 
bound Paul was thus born, and bought his freedom and cit- 
izenship with a great sum, as he expresses it. E. G. S. 

ROMANS, SEVENTH CHAPTER. 

Brother Sew ell: Please give a lesson on Rom. 7. I have been 
asked to visit a man of modern sanctification belief and talk to him 
on this chapter. He says Paul was only justified when he wrote 
Rom. 7, and was trying to serve two masters, and could not do that 
which was good, but that in the eighth chapter he has been sanctified 
and this carnal mind has been taken away. Now, I do not under- 
stand the chapter as well as I would like. He says: "I am carnal, 
sold under sin." Again, he says: "I thank God through Jesus Christ 
our Lord. So then I myself with the mind serve the law of God; but 
with the flesh the law of sin." I shall feel greatly obliged if you will 
write through the Gospel Advocate on this chapter. 

In the first place, your man states, not what the word of 
God says, but simply a human opinion ; simply a theory, a 
doctrine of man's wisdom. Neither the seventh nor the 
eighth chapter of Romans, nor any other chapter in the 
New Testament, contains either the language or the senti- 
ment he uttered. Paul teaches grand lessons both in the 
seventh and eighth chapters of Romans ; and the beauty 
of it is, it was not simply Paul as a man that did that teach- 
ing, but the Holy Spirit did it through him; and what the 
Holy Spirit says should be an end to the matter. In the 
seventh chapter of Romans, Paul was defending the law 
of Moses as a righteous law, and that it was not the fault 
of the law that people sinned under it, but the fault was 
in the people indulging their fleshly propensities that made 
them sinners. He also shows that Christians are "dead 
to the law by the body of Christ ;" for it is true that Christ 
took the law "out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 
2: 14, 15.) Christians, therefore, are entirely free from 



550 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the law of Moses, and this is what Paul thanks God for in 
the close of the chapter. 

It is certainly a great blessing that Christian Jews are 
freed from the incumbrances of the law and are free to 
serve God in newness of the Spirit and not in the oldness 
of the letter, the law of Moses. Hence, Paul triumphantly 
says in verse 1 of chapter 8: "There is therefore now no 
condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk 
not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." To walk after 
the flesh is to yield to our fleshly impulses and lead a mere 
fleshly life. To walk after the Spirit is to live as the Spirit 
of God directs us to live in the New Testament; and for 
Christians to do this is scriptural sanctification, which is to 
lead a holy life. There is no sanctification taught in the 
New Testament that takes a man's fleshly propensities out 
of him so that he will never be tempted to do wrong. The 
passions of anger, lust, envy, jealousy, and all such like 
passions, stay in Christians ; and God makes it the duty of 
Christians to conquer these passions, to keep them under 
control of the teaching of the Spirit of God, through the 
word -of truth. Jesus prayed his Father to sanctify all his 
followers through the truth — that is, through the word of 
truth. (John 17: 17.) The only way in which the word 
of God can sactify men, which is to make them holy, is to 
induce them to obey the truth, to live as the word of truth 
directs people to live. Hence, Paul was just as holy, just 
as much sanctified, when he wrote the seventh chapter of 
Romans as he was when he wrote the eighth chapter. But 
your man says Paul was only justified when he wrote the 
seventh chapter and sanctified when he wrote the eighth. 
The word justified means one that has obeyed the gospel 
and is still living as the gospel directs. If a man fails to go 
on and live as the word of God directs, he ceases to be a 
justified man. Paul was living the Christian life as faith- 
fully in the seventh chapter as he was in the eighth, and he 
teaches this principle as plainly and strongly throughout 
the eighth chapter as language can express anything. In 
it he says: "Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the 
flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, 
ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the 
deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by 
the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God." (Verses 12- 
14.) To be led by the Spirit- of God is to be led by the 
teaching of the Spirit, through the apostles, as written in 
the New Testament. The Lord intends for Christians to so 
study the teaching of the Spirit and get their hearts so 
filled with it as to enable them to keep down fleshly passions 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 551 

and impulses — that is, to "mortify . . . your members 
which are upon the earth : fornication, uncleanness, inordi- 
nate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which 
is idolatry : for which things' sake the wrath of God cometh 
on the children of disobedience." (Col. 3: 5, 6.) To live 
this sort of a life is the sanctification of the New Testament, 
and nothing else is. Even Paul himself had to fight the im- 
pulses of the flesh during his whole life. He says : "I there- 
fore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that 
beateth the air: but I keep under my body, and bring it 
into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have 
preached to others, I myself should be a castaway." (1 
Cor. 9: 26, 27.) So Paul never got rid of his fleshly pas- 
sions, only as he kept them under through the teaching of 
the word. This is the sort of sanctification all Christians 
have to practice if they would be saved. The New Testa- 
ment says nothing about a sanctification that people get in 
a moment of time, that kills out all tendency and tempta- 
tion to sin. All Christians have to fight against temptation 
and sin, like Paul, to the end of life, or be lost at last. 

Your friend, therefore, needs to read the chapters he 
names — not through the opinions of men, but simply study 
the meaning of the words as they stand and apply them 
accordingly. If he will do this, he may understand the 
truths taught therein. But he will not find what he says 
in these chapters. The eighth chapter shows what sancti- 
fication really is by showing Christians how to live the 
Christian life. To actively and devotedly do the will of God 
on earth is sanctification — that is, it makes people holy; 
hence to sanctify people is to keep them doing the will of 
God till they die. 

ROMANS, NINTH CHAPTER. 

Brother Lipscomb : The ninth chapter of Romans I cannot under- 
stand. The first part of the chapter through verse 5 I do under- 
stand, but the rest of this chapter I do not, and am very anxious to 
have it explained. Kindly explain it for me. 

To explain the ninth chapter of Romans is a lengthy 
question for one answer. Perhaps we can make a few sug- 
gestions that will be helpful in explaining it. It is not so 
difficult as some other chapters. Paul explains the rejec- 
tion of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles in connec- 
tion with the promises made to Abraham that his children 
should be the people of God. He begins this chapter with 
the declaration of his own personal love for the children of 
Israel. He claimed his love for them was so intense that 
he felt he could wish himself accursed from Jesus if thereby 



552 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

he could save them from condemnation. Verses 3-5 tell 
that Jews had been called to positions of honor and trust. 
But this failure of the Jews to receive Jesus as the Lord was 
not an indication of God's plan of saving men. He declared 
to Moses his purpose of saving of the family of Abraham 
whom he would and condemning whom he would. So it 
was no part of the original purpose of God to save all the 
children of Abraham, but only those who complied with the 
law of God. He refers to God's choosing Jacob and reject- 
ing Esau. God selected Jacob and rejected Esau despite 
the will of Isaac or the running of Esau to gain the bless- 
ing. God blessed according to his own will the one he es- 
teemed worthy of his blessing. So, too, God had chosen 
Pharaoh to raise him up before the people to show to the 
world how he could curse those who sinned against him. 
If God does as he will, who shall complain? As the potter 
has power from the same lump to make one vessel to honor, 
and of the same lump of clay spoiled to make another unto 
dishonor, so God from the Jews might raise some unto 
honor and others of the marred clay unto dishonor. So he 
blessed some of the Jews and proscribed the others to a 
destruction of wrath. The faithful Jews were kept as an 
example of blessing; the unfaithful ones, for a curse. It 
had been the part of the prophecy of Hosea that the Gen- 
tiles, who had not been called the people of God, would 
be so called. Isaiah told that the Jews, as a body, would 
reject Jesus ; and had it not been for the remnant left, they 
would have been as Sodom and Gomorrah. If these things 
worked thus, the Gentiles, who had not followed after right- 
eousness, had attained to it ; but Isaac, that had followed after 
it, had failed to attain to the righteousness of the law. The 
Jews failed to attain to it because they sought it not by faith, 
but by the works of the law of Moses. The Gentiles gained 
the righteousness because they sought it through faith in 
the Lord Jesus Christ. He quotes in conclusion the proph- 
ecy of Isaiah that he would put a stone of stumbling in the 
way — Jesus Christ, the Lord. At him all who failed to be- 
lieve would stumble, but those who believed would not be 
put to shame. 

The next chapter begins with Paul's prayer for his peo- 
ple, who had a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge ; 
and they, in their ignorance of God's way of justifying men, 
went about to establish a way of their own that brought 
destruction and wrath upon themselves. 

It seems to me with these suggestions we may understand 
the chapter. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 553 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Rom. 9, especially verses 16, 21. 

It is difficult to comment on the whole chapter. He be- 
gins by telling that all the children of Abraham were not 
accepted children of God. Only a portion of them were of 
the family of Israel, were children of God. Only Jacob's 
children of Isaac were his. In verse 14 he tells there is no 
unrighteousness with God because some of his chosen peo- 
ple fall away and sin. He refers to the call of Jacob, to 
Esau's running, to Isaac's choosing Esau; yet, despite 
Esau's running and Isaac's desire, God chose Jacob. The 
calling was not as man willed nor as Esau desired. He 
illustrates God's calling and controlling men by the way he 
did Pharaoh. He did not make Pharaoh wicked, but he 
raised him up a wicked man to show his power to destroy 
the wicked to the world. So God hardens those he will 
who are wicked to destroy them. On those that are good 
he shows mercy. He has mercy on the good, he hardens 
those that are wicked unto their own destruction. Why 
should any find fault? He visits on each class what he 
chooses and deserves. Shall any ask of God : "Why did you 
make me thus?" The potter has the right to make of the 
clay such vessels as it is suited to make. He may of the 
same family choose a part to ruin, another part to salvation. 
God has long borne with the Jews, and now with the Gen- 
tiles — borne with their sins ; and what if he wishes to pun- 
ish them for it? So he treats the world now. 

ROMANS, ELEVENTH CHAPTER. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: If you please, at your leisure, 
explain some of the eleventh chapter of Romans. I confess the whole 
chapter seems dark to me. It was the wish of Paul that we might 
understand it. He says: "I would not, brethren, that ye should be 
ignorant," etc. (Verse 25.) I will mention a few passages: 

1. Did God blind Israel and prevent them from obtaining the very 
thing the elect received? (Verse 7.) 

2. How was their table made a snare and a stiimblingblock? 
(Verse 9.) 

3. Is the first fruit here the first members of the Christian church, 
or is the allusion to the Savior? (Verse 16.) 

4. What are the two olive trees used to represent? Are they used 
to represent the Jewish and Gentile nations? Or was the Jewish 
church called the good olive tree and the Gentiles the wild olive tree? 
Some say the Jewish church is the good olive tree and the Christian 
church is the same, with a little modification, and say the Jews fell 
on account of unbelief. They were born in that kingdom and fell for 
the want of faith. How are they grafted in again? 

The great trouble regarding this eleventh chapter of 
Romans, together with many other passages of similar im- 
port, is on account of the notions extant regarding eternal 
election and reprobation. When we first get the idea in 



554 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

our minds that God from all eternity has elected a certain 
part of the human race to be saved and the other part to be 
lost, and then read such chapters as the above, we can find 
many things that will confirm the idea ; but when we read of 
election in the Bible, we are not to understand that it refers 
to something done or decreed in the mind of God before the 
world was, but something done from time to time among 
men through the means and instrumentalities that God has 
established. God has established the gospel of Christ to 
save men, and every one that obeys the gospel, whether Jew 
or Gentile, is elected by it, and every one that rejects it is 
reprobated by it. When the gospel was established, all dis- 
tinction between Jew and Gentile was done away, and all 
stood upon precisely the same footing before God. The 
Jew in the gospel of Christ has no advantage over the Gen- 
tile. All can be saved alike by obeying the gospel, and all 
will be condemned alike for disobeying it. All, both Jews 
and Gentiles, who obey the gospel of Christ are elected by 
it, and thereby become a part of God's elect people; and 
none can ever be the elect of God who disobey the gospel, 
and those who imagine that they are among the elect of God 
and are at the same time living in disobedience to the gos- 
pel are wholly mistaken. 

Verse 7 reads thus: "What then? Israel hath not ob- 
tained that which he seeketh for ; but the election hath ob- 
tained it, and the rest were blinded." The election spoken 
of here were those who embraced the gospel and became 
Christians, such as the three thousand on the day of Pen- 
tecost and others who obeyed the gospel as preached by the 
apostles. The commission of Christ to his apostles as re- 
corded by Mark is a full explanation of this matter. Christ 
said, "Preach the gospel to every creature," both to Jews 
and Gentiles, adding: "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved ; but he that believeth not shall be damned." 
This is sufficient to explain every passage in the New Tes- 
tament regarding election. The election spoken of in this 
verse 7 included those among the Jews that believed and 
were baptized, and the blinded ones spoken of were those 
who believed not after hearing the gospel. The word ren- 
dered blinded literally means to harden. Then the ques- 
tion is : How were they hardened ? On this there is a world 
of error arising, from the idea of eternal reprobation. God 
from eternity never hardened anybody. Men are not hard- 
ened by the direct power of God upon them, any more than 
they are made Christians by direct power. Men are hard- 
ened by hearing the truth and resisting it until it has no 
effect upon them. When men hear the gospel and yield 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 555 

their hearts and lives to it, they are softened by it ; but, on 
the other hand, when men hear the gospel and refuse to 
yield their hearts and lives to it, they are hardened by it. 
When men become thus hardened by the gospel, they are 
condemned of God. That is just what occurred among 
the Jews in the time of the apostles. Some of them al- 
lowed their hearts to be softened and won by the gospel, 
while the masses of them allowed their hearts to be hard- 
ened ; and on this account the masses of the Jews were re- 
jected, destroyed, and dispersed among the nations; and, 
unfortunately, they still remain in this hardened condition. 

This leads to the explanation of verse 9, where their table 
was to become a snare and a trap unto them. The table 
they set by rejecting Christ and clinging to Moses, and upon 
which they expected the blessings of God to be placed, sim- 
ply became the trap in which they were caught and en- 
gulfed in ruin; and just so long as they remain in unbelief, 
nothing but ruin awaits them. The same principle is true 
regarding the Gentiles, who for other considerations reject 
the gospel. These are strong figures, and yet very plain 
if we interpret them by plain passages elsewhere on the 
same subject. 

The first fruit spoken of in verse 16 are those among the 
Jews who obeyed the gospel when it was first preached to 
them. Paul had just spoken of the casting away of the 
Jews as a nation because of their disobedience to God in 
breaking the covenant or law of Moses, on account of which 
they were put down upon a level with the Gentiles. But 
as many of them as became Christians, which are here 
called the first fruits, became holy again, became God's 
chosen people in Christ ; and the whole lump of them might 
have become holy, as the original root (Abraham) was, 
who was the father or original root of the Jewish nation ; 
and the whole lump might yet become holy if they would 
obey the gospel and become the followers of the Lamb. 

As to the two olive trees, I do not know of anything we 
are to understand by them, only that they are used here to 
represent the dealings of God with the Jewish and Gentile 
nations. When the Jews disobeyed God through the law, 
he rejected them, broke them off from his favor, and re- 
garded them with no more favor than the Gentiles ; but 
when any of them would embrace the gospel, they were en- 
grafted back into God's favor again; while the Gentiles, 
who had not during the law enjoyed the favor of God, could 
also, by the same process, be engrafted into the favor of 
God through the gospel of Christ. When the Jews, who 
during the law were God's favored people, rejected Christ, 



556 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

they were broken off from their own olive tree, but may 
now, by obedience to the gospel, be grafted into the favor 
of God in common with the Jews, and thus Jews and Gen- 
tiles become one — become one olive tree in the vineyard of 
the Lord, in the church of God. 

We become bewildered by these figures when we under- 
stand them as something independent, without reference to 
the connection in which they are placed and the things in- 
tended to be illustrated by them; but by taking them in 
their proper connection and allowing them to illustrate the 
matters under consideration where they are used, they be- 
come very plain. Most of the letter to the Romans is taken 
up in showing that the Jewish nation, as such, was rejected 
for its disobedience, that the law was brought to an end, 
and that now all, both Jews and Gentiles, can be adopted, 
grafted into the family of God by obedience to the gospel 
of the Son of God. With this one leading idea before our 
minds, all the figures that are used as illustrative of this 
leading idea are perfectly, plain. E. G. S. 

SABBATH, THE QUESTION OF. 

This article has been sent us from Texas for review. 
As the Adventists in various sections of the country are 
exciting some interest, we publish and review it. 

Nearly all professing Christians observe some day as a Sabbath 
unto the Lord. Some keep the day which God appointed; but most 
all, doubtless conscientiously, rest on Sunday. Well, it is presumed 
that all who read this tract are interested to know which day is the 
right one to keep; for certainly there cannot be two Sundays, and 
so we will present a few facts about Sabbath and Sunday. Will you 
look at them carefully? Take your Bibles and examine the texts of 
scripture quoted. Here are the facts referred to: 

1. Facts About the Sabbath. 

God made the Sabbath at creation. (Gen. 2: 2, 3; Ex. 20: 11.) 
It was observed before the law was given on Sinai. (Ex. 16: 23-30.) 
The command to observe it is associated with nine moral precepts, 
which are binding upon all men during all time. It is placed in the 
bosom of the unchangeable law. (Ex. 20: 8-11.) 

It is a sign between God and his people. (Ex. 31: 17; Ezek. 20: 20.) 
Wrath came upon ancient Israel for breaking the Sabbath. (Neh. 
13: 15-18.) 

If the Sabbath had been kept, Jerusalem would not have been de- 
stroyed. (Jer. 17: 24, 25.) 

Prophecy foretells a reform on the Sabbath. (Isa. 58: 12-14.) 
The Sabbath will exist in the new earth. (Isa. 66.) 
Christ observed the Sabbath. (Mark 1: 21.) 
He called himself its Lord. (Mark 2: 28.) 
It was his custom to preach on that day. (Luke 4.) 
The disciples rested on the Sabbath while Christ was lying in the 
grave. (Luke 23: 56.) 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 557 

Matthew, Mark, and Luke, who wrote after the crucifixion and 
resurrection of Christ, spoke familiarly of the Sabbath as an existing 
institution. (Matt. 24: 20; 28: 1; Mark 16: 1; Luke 23: 56.) 

It was Paul's manner to make the Sabbath a preaching day. (Acts 
17: 2.) 

The Gentile believers also observed the Sabbath. (Acts 13: 42, 44.) 

Paul preached by a riverside, where there was no synagogue, on 
the Sabbath. (Acts 16: 13.) 

He reasoned in the synagogue at Corinth every Sabbath. (Acts 
18: 4.) 

He continued there a year and six months (seventy-eight Sab- 
baths), teaching the word of God. (Acts 18: 11.) 

Finally, in the last mention of it in the Bible, it is called the Lord's 
day. (Rev. 1: 10.) (Compare this text with Ex. 20: 10; Isa. 58: 
13; Mark 2: 28.) 

2. Facts About the First Day op the Week, or Sunday. 

Christ rose from the dead on that day. (Mark 16: 9; Matt. 28: 
1; Mark 16: 2; John 20: 1.) (But he did not say that it was, there- 
fore, the Sabbath.) 

The women brought spices to the grave of the Savior on that day. 
(Luke 24: 1.) (Which they would not do on the Sabbath — see Luke 
23: 56.) 

Christ appeared to his disciples on that day, the doors being shut 
for fear of the Jews. (John 20: 19.) (They were not assembled to 
keep the Sabbath, but had closed the doors for personal safety.) 

Paul once preached on the evening of the first day (Acts 20: 7), 
corresponding with our Saturday night. (But the next morning, an- 
swering to our Sunday morning, he continued his journey toward 
Jerusalem, nine hundred miles distant!) 

The Corinthians were commanded to lay by a collection for the 
saints on the first day. (1 Cor. 16: 2.) (This might be money or 
goods. It was not a public donation, but a private setting apart.) 

The foregoing, dear reader, are all the texts which speak of the 
first day of the week. There are just eight of them. But what do 
they prove? Nothing at all in favor of Sunday. Carefully exam- 
ined, they prove the reverse. 

The Bible tells us that "sin is the transgression of the law." (1 
John 3:4.) But what law do we transgress when we work on Sun- 
day? If the reader will find a text which says, "Thou shalt do no 
work on the first day of the week;" or, "Remember Sunday, to keep 
it holy;" or its equivalent, then will his Sunday observance, in place 
of God's Sabbath, stand the test of the judgment; otherwise it will 
not. Will you consider this point? 

The Savior says: "Blessed are they that do his [i. e., God the 
Father's ten] commandments, that they may have right to the tree 
of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city." (Rev. 20: 
14.) But where is that commandment that speaks about Sunday? 
It is not in the Bible, but it is in the Roman Catholic catechisms. 
Read your Bibles through a hundred times with reference to this 
subject, and you will each time become more and more convinced of 
the truthfulness of the following notable facts: 

1. There is no divine command for Sunday observance. 

2. There is not the least hint of a Sunday institution. 

3. Christ never changed God's Sabbath to Sunday. 

4. He never observed Sunday as the Sabbath. 

5. The apostles never kept Sunday for the Sabbath. 

6. There is no prophecy that Sunday would ever take the place of 
the Sabbath. 

7. The word Sunday never occurs in the Bible. 



558 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

8. Neither God, Christ, angels, nor inspired men have ever said 
one word in favor of Sunday as a holy day. 

These are the facts in the case in regard to the Sabbath and Sun- 
day, and it is hoped the reader will search the Bible to see whether 
these things are so. (See Acts 17: 11.) Again let me inquire: 
Which day do you keep, and why? 

Bible Reasons for the Seventh Day and the Claims of 
First Day Contrasted. 

God claimed the seventh day as his own in many scriptures and at 
many different times. He never so claimed the first day, but gave it 
to man for labor. 

He blessed and sanctified the seventh day. He neither blessed nor 
sanctified the first day. 

He commanded that the seventh day be kept holy. He never com- 
manded to keep the first day. There is but one commandment in the 
Bible for a weekly Sabbath, and that says the seventh day. 

God uttered fearful threatenings against those who profane the 
seventh day. He has spoken nothing against laboring on the first day. 

He has given great arid precious promises to those who keep holy the 
seventh day. He has not spoken one word of promise or blessing for 
keeping the first day. 

Everything that is necessary to give importance to the day — that 
is calculated to induce a proper observance of the day — is produced in 
favor of the seventh day. But nothing of this kind can be produced 
in favor of the first day — no sanctity, no commandment, no penalty, 
no blessing. 

The foregoing article is published as a tract by the Sev- 
enth-Day Baptists, or Adventists. We frequently think it 
best to pass these things without notice. They are tempo- 
rary and evanescent excitements that carry away those 
who are unstable in character and unacquainted with the 
Bible. Those who think it smart to adopt something new, 
for a little while adopt these theories ; but, owing to the ma- 
terial that go into them, they are short-lived. We recently 
came in contact with some of these ; and although they had 
produced a temporary excitement, we found one discourse, 
with a ten-minutes' reply to a review of it, sufficient to sat- 
isfy all hearers of the falsity of the position. 

We are not surprised that our pedobaptist friends are 
carried away with the position, but that an intelligent dis- 
ciple should be seems to us strange. Pedobaptists go to 
the Jewish covenant for their church membership. They 
give others license to go there for their day of worship. 
Indeed, they lay themselves under obligation to observe not 
only the Sabbath, but every point of the Jewish law. 

In the first place, then, the question comes up: What 
are you keeping? The Sabbath? If so, our Seventh-Day 
friends are right. God never authorized any day but the 
seventh to be observed as a Sabbath day. He never 
changed the Sabbath from the seventh to the first day of 
the week. No day is recognized in the Bible, or has ever 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 559 

been recognized by God, as the Sabbath, except the seventh 
day. If a man intends to observe the Sabbath day, then, 
he must observe the seventh day. He must do it, too, ac- 
cording to the law concerning the Sabbath day as given 
from Sinai. Those who observe the first day should not 
do it as an observance of the Sabbath. 

What position, then, did the Sabbath occupy in the will 
of God? It is said: "On the seventh day God ended his 
work which he had made ; and he rested on the seventh day 
from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the 
seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had 
rested from all his works which God created and made." 
(Gen. 2: 2, 3.) But there is not the least intimation that 
it was ever commanded or appointed as a day of observance 
until given to the Jews through Moses. The first occasion 
of its mention in the Bible as a Sabbath for man is Ex. 
16 : 22. On the occasion of the giving of the manna to the 
Israelites in the wilderness, Moses commanded to gather 
for every man a homer. On the sixth day they gathered 
twice as much as upon any other day. The rulers reported 
it to Moses. "And he said unto them, This is that which 
the Lord hath said, To-morrow is the rest of the Holy Sab- 
bath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to-day, 
and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth 
over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they 
laid it up till the morning, as Moses bade: and it did not 
stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses 
said, Eat that to-day; for to-day is a Sabbath unto the 
Lord: to-day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye 
shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sab- 
bath, in it there shall be none." The style of command, 
the manner in which the double portion is spoken of as a 
surprise, all show that the Sabbath idea was altogether 
new. There is no intimation of its being commanded or 
in any way made known to or observed by the Jewish peo- 
ple. They had not been habituated to cooking their food 
upon the sixth day for the seventh, so Moses explained it as 
something wholly new to them ; yet the human family at this 
time had been on earth over twenty-five hundred years. 

This was given about thirty days before reaching Sinai. 
The laws embodied in the covenant were gradually through 
Moses revealed to the Jews, that they might consider of 
them, practice them for a while, that they might be pre- 
pared to enter intelligently into the covenant when the time 
for its ratification should come. Here was the first reve- 
lation of the Sabbath to be embodied in the covenant whose 
ratification would soon take place at Sinai. This was pre- 



560 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

liminary to its ratification. The commands were all given 
to the Jewish people; then God in the darkness and thun- 
ders of Sinai ratifies the covenant. The Ten Command- 
ments were given to the Jewish people, written upon the 
tables of stone and delivered to Moses. Among these is the 
command: "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy." 
(Ex. 20: 8.) The command is frequently repeated by 
Moses in the repetitions of the Jewish law, with various 
specifications as to the manner of observing it, together 
with the other commandments. These Ten Commandments 
constitute the great leading constitutional principles of 
God's government of the Jews. The other commands are 
the precepts and statutes directing how these constitutional 
provisions shall be carried out. 

It is sometimes said by our Seventh-Day friends that 
these Ten Commandments are everlasting. They say they 
were in force previous to Moses and are binding through 
all time. Neh. 9: 13, 14 says: "Thou earnest down also 
upon mount Sinai, and spakest with them from heaven, 
and gavest them right judgments, and true laws, good stat- 
utes and commandments : and madest known unto them thy 
holy Sabbath, and commandedst them precepts, statutes, 
and laws, by the hand of Moses thy servant." Although 
revealed a few days previous to Sinai as preliminary to it 
and ratified and confirmed to the Jews then, it is said by 
Nehemiah to have been given then, to have been then made 
known to the Jews. It could not have been known to them 
previous to that time. Moses, speaking of covenants, says : 
"The Lord our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. 
The Lord made not this covenant with our fathers, but with 
us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day." (Deut. 
5: 2, 3.) Then the Ten Commandments are repeated as 
embodying the covenant made with them that was not made 
with their fathers. The command to keep the Sabbath 
holy was one of the obligations made with them, but not 
with their fathers. 

The Sabbath had its beginning incontestably with the 
law of Moses ; was never given otherwise than through these 
Ten Commandments written on stone and given through 
Moses as the mediator. The object for which the Sabbath 
was given to the Jewish people is told in Ex. 31: 12-14. 
Ezekiel (20: 12) says: "Moreover also I gave them my Sab- 
baths, to be a sign between me and them, that they might 
know that I am the Lord that sanctify them." In verse 21 
he says: "Notwithstanding the children rebelled against 
me: . . . they polluted my Sabbaths: then I said, I 
would pour out my fury upon them, to accomplish my an- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 561 

ger against them in the wilderness. " God sanctified the 
Jewish people as his peculiar people, and the Sabbath was 
instituted to be a sign between the Jews and God. If a 
sign between them and God, it could not be binding upon 
others than the Jews and those who might be adopted into 
the Jewish family. It could be binding no longer than they 
remained the sanctified people of God. 

None during the Jewish age could acceptably come to 
God, save by identifying themselves with God's sanctified 
people. The Sabbath was not in force previous to the giv- 
ing of the law of Moses. It was never given to others than 
the Jewish people. It could not continue in force longer 
than the law of which it is a part is in force. "Now we 
know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to 
them who are under the law." (Rom. 3 : 19.) The things 
contained in the law cannot be binding upon those not un- 
der the law. 

Now, there can be but two questions connected with the 
Sabbath. First, is the covenant of which it constituted a 
portion now in force? If so, the Sabbath is in force. Sec- 
ond, has it been adopted into the new covenant which su- 
perseded the old? If both these questions by the Scrip- 
tures are answered in the negative, beyond a doubt the Sab- 
bath is not now in force. 

There was a promise made to Abraham of an inheritance 
and a seed through whom that inheritance could be enjoyed. 
This promise was embodied in a prospective covenant with 
Abraham. That covenant was confirmed of God in Christ. 
The fulfillment of that covenant with Abraham was post- 
poned on account of the transgression of the children of 
Abraham. On account of this transgression the covenant 
embodying the law given from Sinai intervened. But the 
intervention of that law could not annul the promise. It 
postponed its fulfillment — or, rather, the transgression of 
the people postponed the fulfillment of the promise, and the 
law was introduced to train and qualify and prepare the 
people for the fulfillment of the promise. Paul (Gal. 3: 
17-24) says: "This I say, that the covenant, that was con- 
firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four 
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect. For if the inherit- 
ance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave 
it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth the 
law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed 
should come to whom the promise was made; and it [the 
law] was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. 
. . . Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring 



562 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

us unto Christ." This shows that the law given at Sinai, 
four hundred and thirty years after the promise to Abra- 
ham, was never intended to be permanent. It was added, 
or introduced, as a schoolmaster to train the transgressors 
for Christ's coming. This change from the covenant of 
Sinai was frequently foretold by prophets during the ex- 
istence of the Sinaitic covenant. Jeremiah (31: 31-33) 
says: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will 
make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the 
house of Judah : not according to the covenant that I made 
with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand 
to bring them out of the land of Egypt ; which my covenant 
they brake, although I was a husband unto them, saith the 
Lord : but this shall be the covenant that I will make with 
the house of Israel ; After those days, saith the Lord, I will 
put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their 
hearts ; and will be their God, and they shall be my people." 
Paul quotes this as being fulfilled in the new testament, or 
Christian dispensation. It is clear that the then existing, 
or Sinaitic, covenant must be superseded by a more per- 
fect covenant. Paul says that covenant was then intro- 
duced by Christ, the fulfillment of the promise made to 
Abraham. Jeremiah (32: 40) says: "I will make an ever- 
lasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from 
them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their 
hearts, that they shall not depart from me." (See also 
Jer. 33: 14.) Isaiah (55: 3) says: "I will make an ever- 
lasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David." 
Ezekiel (37: 26) says: "I will make a covenant of peace 
with them ; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them : 
and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my 
sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore." These 
promises of a new covenant which should be everlasting 
were made from eight to ten hundred years after the Mo- 
saic covenant had been in force. They plainly imply that 
the then existing covenant given at Sinai was not everlast- 
ing. It must be superseded by a better one, in which the 
promise to Abraham would be fulfilled. But a covenant 
made with God must be fulfilled before humanity can be re- 
leased from the penalties attached to it. No human being 
under the law had fulfilled its requirements until Christ 
came. He lived in perfect accord with the law, fulfilled 
all of its requirements to the last iota. In him was com- 
pleted all the promises ; so he alone could take it out of the 
way. He came to fulfill the law, comply with its require- 
ments, and not to destroy it — break or annul it before it had 
been fulfilled. When he had fulfilled it, he might set it 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 563 

aside — supersede it with a purer, higher, more perfect law. 
When he had fulfilled the requirements of the law, he gave 
the great constitutional principles of the covenant that 
must supersede the old one. These fundamental princi- 
ples of the new covenant are contained in the Sermon on 
the Mount, as those of the old were contained in the Ten 
Commandments. 

After Christ's recognition as the Son of God, he, of 
course, came in contact with the Sabbath and its observ- 
ance. He taught on the Sabbath; so he did on the mar- 
ket days and at the market places. He taught whenever 
and wherever the people were assembled. Connected with 
those teachings, he did many works which violated the sanc- 
tity of the Sabbath. The first mention we have of the Sab- 
bath in connection with Christ is Matt. 12: 1. He went 
through the corn (wheat) fields on the Sabbath. His dis- 
ciples began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat. The 
Pharisees complained that they broke the law. He asked 
them: "Have ye not read what David did, when he was 
ahungered, and they that were with him; how he entered 
into the house of God, and did eat the showbread, which 
was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were 
with him, but only for the priests? Or have ye not read 
in the law, how that on the Sabbath days the priests in the 
temple profane the Sabbath, and are blameless? But I say 
unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple. 
. . . For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath 
day." Some affirm the Savior did not break the Sabbath 
law as given by Moses, but only corrected an idolatrous 
reverence for it; but none who will read the sabbatic law 
of Moses, in which none were permitted to even kindle a 
fire on the Sabbath (Ex. 34 : 3) , and the stoning of the man 
to death for gathering sticks upon the Sabbath day (Num. 
15 : 32) , can doubt that the gathering of the corn was a vio- 
lation of that law. The Savior justifies his disciples, not on 
the ground that it was not a violation of the law, but gives 
two instances in which the law was violated and the vio- 
lators held blameless. The sanctity of the temple service 
justified the profaning of the Sabbath day. He then adds : 
"Here is one greater than the temple." If the demands of 
the temple service could set aside the observance of the 
Sabbath, much more could he, with more authority, do it. 
Then he asserts that he is Lord, or Master, of the Sabbath. 
He has the right to control it, to set it aside, to abrogate 
its sanctity. Mark (2: 27, 28), in giving the same record, 
adds: "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for 
the Sabbath: therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the 



564 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Sabbath." That is, the Sabbath was ordained for man's 
good, not man as a slave of the Sabbath- The Son of man, 
having come for the good of man, has the right and power 
to set aside the sanctity of the Sabbath when the good of 
man demands it. He healed a man on the Sabbath, and 
announced it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath day. 
(Mark 1.) He again healed on the Sabbath day. (Mark 
6.) He loosed the woman from her bond on the Sabbath, 
and the ruler of the synagogue complained. (Luke 13.) He 
healed the dropsy on the Sabbath, and was watched and 
accused as a breaker of the law. (Luke 14.) He healed 
the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda, and told him to 
take up his bed and walk, contrary to the sabbatic law. 
Jesus said in response to their childings : "My Father work- 
eth hitherto [on the Sabbath], and I work." (John 5.) 
He healed the man born blind on the Sabbath day, and ex- 
cited the fury of the Jews thereby. (John 9.) Indeed, 
every record of his contact with the Sabbath snowed him 
violating the Sabbath law, trampling upon the feelings of 
the Jews in regard to the day, asserting his superiority to 
it and his authority over it, and by every act of his weaning 
those who regarded him as a teacher sent from God from 
their reverence for the sacredness of the day, thus prepar- 
ing them for its abrogation when the law should be finally 
and fully abolished. That law for whose complete aboli- 
tion he was thus preparing his disciples was taken out of 
the way, nailed to the cross, in the person of Him who had 
perfectly fulfilled it and of which he was the full embodi- 
ment. He embodied the law in his own person. It died 
with and in him — was buried. He gave life to the new 
covenant in his resurrection from the dead. 

Was this covenant of Sinai abolished by Christ? The 
Jewish prejudices were strong; Jewish pride, long cher- 
ished, was hard to overcome; and from the infancy of the 
new church the question was one of hot controversy : "Shall 
the law of Moses be kept?" Some of Judaizing tendency 
insisted that all Christians should be circumcised and keep 
the law of Moses. The observance of the Sabbath was part 
of this law. Paul and Barnabas were sent up to the apos- 
tles for a decision of the question. After much discussion, 
Peter told of the first conversion of the Gentiles through 
his preaching, and asked : "Why tempt ye God, to put a yoke 
upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor 
we were able to bear?" (Acts 15: 10.) That yoke was 
the Jewish law given through Moses at Sinai. They could 
not bear it. Even David violated the sabbatic law. "The 
priests in the temple profane the Sabbath, and are blame- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 565 

less." It was too heavy for them to bear. The apostles 
and elders, under the direction of the Spirit, wrote to the 
Gentiles: "As we have heard, that certain which went out 
from us have troubled you with words, subverting your 
souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: 
to whom we gave no such commandment." (Acts 15: 24.) 
To require the converts to keep the law of Moses was to 
subvert their souls. The law of Moses was the law from 
Sinai. The question still troubled the churches. Paul 
wrote to the Romans : "By the deeds of the law there shall 
no flesh be justified in his sight." (Rom. 3 : 20.) "Where- 
fore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by 
the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, 
even to him who is raised from the dead. . . . But now 
we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we 
were held." (Rom. 7: 4-6.) To the Corinthians, Paul 
said : "Ye are manifestly declared to be the epistle of Christ 
ministered by us, written not with ink, but with the 
Spirit of the living God ; not in tables of stone, but in fleshly 
tables of the heart." (2 Cor. 3: 3.) The new covenant 
was to be written on the heart, not on tables of stone, as 
were the Ten Commandments. The contrast is still kept 
up in verses 6-11 : "Who also hath made us able ministers 
of the new testament [or covenant] ; not of the letter, but 
of the spirit. . . . But if the ministration of death, 
written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the 
children of Israel could not steadfastly behold the face of 
Moses for the glory of his countenance ; which glory was 
to be done away: how shall not the ministration of the 
spirit be rather glorious? For if the ministration of con- 
demnation be glory, much more doth the ministration of 
righteousness exceed in glory. . . . For if that which 
is done away was glorious, much more that which remain- 
eth is glorious." Thus the Holy Spirit calls the law or cov- 
enant written and engraven on stones a "ministration of 
death" — a ministration of condemnation — and says it is 
done away; in contrast with the new covenant, which he 
calls the "ministration of the spirit," of righteousness, 
which is more glorious and remains in its glory. Now, if 
the ministration written in stones is done away, the Sab- 
bath is done away with it. 

The Jewish prejudice was so strong that Peter, who had 
opened the church to the Gentiles, and Barnabas, one of the 
apostles to the Gentiles, were carried away with it and 
refused to eat with the Gentile converts at Antioch. Paul 
said to Peter : "If thou, being a Jew, livest after the man- 
ner of the Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest 



566 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" Peter, although 
a Jew, did not keep the Jewish law. He adds: "Knowing 
that a man is not justified by the works of the law [of Si- 
nai], but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we [Jews] 
have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by 
the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for 
by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (Gal. 
2: 14-16.) Again: "For as many as are of the works of 
the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is 
every one that continueth not in all things which are writ- 
ten in the book of the law to do them." But no human be- 
ing could live in faultless obedience to the law ; hence, every 
one was cursed by the law. He adds: "But that no man 
is justified by the law [of Moses] in the sight of God, it is 
evident : for, The just shall live by faith." "Christ hath re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law : . . . for it is written 
[in the law of Moses], Cursed is every one that hangeth 
on a tree : that the blessing of Abraham might come on the 
Gentiles through Jesus Christ," not through the law of 
Moses. "And this I say, that the covenant, that was con- 
firmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four 
hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it 
should make the promise of none effect. For if the in- 
heritance be of the law, it is no more of promise : but God 
gave it to Abraham by promise. Wherefore then serveth 
the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the 
seed should come to whom the promise was made." It was 
not to continue, then, longer than the seed (Christ) should 
come. "Is the law then against the promises of God? 
God forbid : for if there had been a law given, which could 
have given life, verily righteousness should have been by 
the law." Because the law of Moses brought the knowl- 
edge of sin, but could not give life, it is called "the ministra- 
tion of death, written in stones." "Wherefore the law was 
our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be 
justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no 
longer under a schoolmaster" — the law. (See Gal. 3: 10- 
25.) Gal. 4 represents the Jews as being minors in bond- 
age, or slaves under the law; in Christ they become sons 
and heirs. In reference to their desire to turn back to the 
law of Sinai, he asks: "How turn ye again to the weak 
and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in 
bondage?" "Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, 
do ye not hear the law? For it is written, that Abraham 
had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a free- 
woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after 
the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 567 

Which things are an allegory: for these are the two cove- 
nants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to 
bondage, which is Agar. For this Agar is mount Sinai in 
Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in 
bondage with her children. But Jerusalem which is above 
is free, which is the mother of us all." Agar and her child 
represent the law, or covenant, at Sinai in Ten Command- 
ments. The other covenant is that of Jerusalem through 
Christ. "Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast 
out the bondwoman and her son : for the son of the bond- 
woman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman. 
So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, 
but of the free." Then the law from Sinai — the ministra- 
tion of death written on stones — is cast out. The law of 
the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, coming forth from Jeru- 
salem, is in force. The one cannot be heir with the other. 
We (Christians) are not children of the law from Sinai, 
but of the faith through Christ. 

Paul admonishes them to "stand fast therefore in the lib- 
erty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not en- 
tangled again with the yoke of bondage" — the law of Moses. 
"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised [be 
under the law of Moses], Christ shall profit you nothing. 
. . . Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever 
of you are justified by the law ; ye are fallen from grace." 
(Gal. 5: 1-4.) To seek justification by the law is to turn 
back from Christ. Christ profits them nothing. To seek 
justification by the law of Moses is to fall from grace. 
Hence the apostle wrote the Gentile converts that those 
who taught them to observe the law of Moses subverted 
their souls. 

This desire to go back to Judaism was the troublesome 
question in the days of the apostles. In almost every let- 
ter it is the main question. To the Ephesians, Paul says: 
"For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath 
broken down the middle wall of partition between us ; hav- 
ing abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of com- 
mandments contained in ordinances ; for to make in himself 
of twain one new man, so making peace." (Eph. 2 : 14, 15.) 
The "law of commandments" were the Ten Commandments 
embodied and exemplified in the ordinances of the Old Tes- 
tament. This was abolished, and the Sabbath day with it. 

To the Colossians, Paul said: "Blotting out the hand- 
writing of ordinances that was against us, which was con- 
trary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his 
cross; and having spoiled principalities and powers, he 
made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it. 



568 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or 
in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the Sab- 
bath days : which are a shadow of things to come ; but the 
body is of Christ." (Col. 2: 14-17.) Here he says that 
law was contrary to us, was against us ; that he took it out 
of the way, abolished it; and especially enumerates as the 
things which we are not to observe "the Sabbath days." 

The letter to the Hebrews is largely taken up with a 
discussion of the two covenants, Paul maintaining the in- 
sufficiency of the covenant from Sinai, in its priests, its 
laws, its sacrifices, its promises, its stability, its inability 
to make its servants perfect as pertained to the conscience, 
or to bring remission of sins, and in its mediator. He says 
Moses' law was but a shadow of heavenly things — but pat- 
terns of things to come. He says of Christ: "He is the 
mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon 
better promises. For if that first covenant [at Sinai] had 
been faultless, then should no place have been sought for 
the second. For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, 
the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new 
covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of 
Judah. ... In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath 
made the first old. Now that which decay eth and waxeth 
old is ready to vanish away." (Heb. 8: 6-13.) "It was 
therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heav- 
ens should be purified with these [bulls and goats] ; but 
the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than 
these." (Heb. 9: 23.) "Having therefore, brethren, bold- 
ness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, by a 
new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, 
through the veil, that is to say, through his flesh ; and hav- 
ing a high priest over the house of God ; let us draw near 
with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our 
hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies 
washed with pure water. Let us hold fast the profession 
of our faith without wavering." (Heb. 10: 19-23.) This 
is an exhortation not to go back to the Jewish law. He 
concludes this discussion to the Hebrews with the state- 
ment: "Ye are not come unto the mount [Sinai] that might 
be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, 
and darkness, and tempest [the giving of the law of Ten 
Commandments in tables of stone] .... But ye are 
come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, 
the heavenly Jerusalem, to an innumerable company of 
angels, to the general assembly and church of the firstborn, 
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, 
and to the spirits of just men made perfect, and to Jesus 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 569 

the mediator of the new covenant. . . . See that ye re- 
fuse not him [Jesus] that speaketh. For if they escaped 
not who refused him [Moses] that spake on earth, much 
more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that 
speaketh from heaven." (Heb. 12: 18-25.) 

The whole drift and purpose of the letter to the Hebrews 
was to call the Jews away from Moses and Sinai as but 
inefficient earthly types and direct them to Zion, Jerusa- 
lem, and Jesus, the mediator, and the new and everlasting 
covenant of which he is the mediator. There is no truth 
more plainly taught in the Scriptures, none to which more 
space is devoted in the New Testament, than the affirma- 
tion of the insufficiency of the law of Sinai, its abrogation, 
and the fact that we are under the law of Christ, not of 
Moses. The tendency in the age of the apostles was to go 
back to Judaism. The apostles warned that to do so was 
to subvert their souls. Paul called it a "ministration of 
death engraved in stones." It was contrary to us; it was 
against us. In going back to it, we went to the weak and 
beggarly elements of bondage; we "fell from grace;" and 
hence Jesus took it out of the way, nailing it to the cross. 

It was thus not because the law was sinful, but because 
man could not live up to it ; it gave him insufficient help ; 
and whosoever offended in one point was guilty of all. The 
tendency of the religious world, despite all this warning, is 
back to Judaism. Many go there for church membership ; 
some, for the day of worship. Both are equally inconsist- 
ent ; both go away from Christ. 

The Mosaic-Sinaitic law has been repealed, of which the 
Sabbath constituted a part. It is not in force by virtue of 
the law given on Mount Sinai. 

Sometimes in human government, forms and laws that 
are adapted to one condition of society are not adapted to 
another. They change their constitutions. But in their 
changes many provisions of the old constitution are still 
good for the new. Those that are good are readopted into 
the new. We were once under the government of Great 
Britain. Our fathers concluded that that government was 
oppressive against them, contrary to them. They changed 
the government, but there were many excellent commands 
or laws of the old government that still were good for them. 
These were enacted into the constitution and laws which 
superseded the British constitution. So when God saw 
that his temporary law of Judaism was contrary to his peo- 
ple and children, he changed the law — superseded it with 
a perfect and everlasting covenant. But in that old cove- 
nant were many excellent statutes that God saw were still 



570 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

good for his people. These he reenacted in his new consti- 
tution, or covenant. We are under obligations to obey 
many of the commands of the Old Testament, not because 
they are in the Old Testament, but because they are reen- 
acted in the New. We are under the new covenant. Has 
the observance of the Sabbath been reenacted into the new 
covenant ? 

We have found the Savior from the beginning of his min- 
istry asserted his authority over the day, refused to be gov- 
erned by the laws of the Sabbath, and continually endeav- 
ored to wean the people from their attachment to its ob- 
servance. Not once did he or an inspired apostle ever, by 
precept or example, encourage the observance of the Sab- 
bath. He taught the people on the Sabbath because they 
met together on the Sabbath. So did he on the market and 
feast days. He went to the people wherever they were 
met. There is not a word in the New Testament encour- 
aging the observance of the Sabbath day. The old covenant, 
which contained the law of the Sabbath, was made with the 
Jewish people. The Sabbath was never commanded to any 
people, save the Jewish people and those who became identi- 
fied with them. 

All the rest of the Ten Commandments were readopted 
into the new covenant, but the command concerning the 
Sabbath never was, by precept or example, in any manner 
enforced. When Jesus and the Holy Spirit left it out, 
who dare place it in? 

Jesus Christ buried the Sabbath, with the old law, in the 
grave with him. He came forth on the first day. His res- 
urrection became the central point of interest in the new 
covenant. He was "declared to be the Son of God with 
power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrec- 
tion from the dead." A new spiritual creation is begun. 
Disciples who had given up all for lost are begotten "again 
unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from 
the dead." The old law is taken out of the way; a new or- 
der begins. On the first day on which he is raised he se- 
cures the meeting of his disciples and meets with them. 
He lets a whole week intervene in which he fails to meet 
with them ; and after eight days, which means the eighth, 
he meets them on the next first day. There is surely some- 
thing signified in these meetings on the first day of the 
week and on none other. Other meetings of the Savior 
took place before his ascension ; the times are not given. 
His was not a continual sojourn with his disciples. It is 
not improbable that his meetings with them were only on 
the first day of the week. He ascended on high, and on the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 571 

Pentecost following the Holy Spirit descended to consti- 
tute the first mother and model of churches of Christ here 
on earth. This day of the descent of the Holy Spirit by 
computation is easily determined to be the first day of the 
week. The Savior then consecrated this day by his meeting 
with them and sending the Holy Spirit to his followers. 
It was the universal custom thenceforward for the disci- 
ples of Christ to meet on the first day of the week. The 
apostles and others still preached to the Jews when they 
met on the Sabbath day, as they did on every occasion of 
public assemblage; but they never appointed, nor is there 
the least evidence that the disciples of Christ ever met to 
engage in the regular worship on any other than the first 
day. An indication of this as a fixed custom is found in 
Acts 20 : 7 : "Upon the first day of the week, when the dis- 
ciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto 
them, ready to depart on the morrow." The circumstances 
are: Paul came to Troas; he reached there on Monday or 
Tuesday; he wished to see the brethren and give them a 
word of instruction ; he waited until the first day of the 
week, sure he would meet them, as it was a universal cus- 
tom to meet on that day. The style, "When the disciples 
came together to break bread," shows not only it was a 
fixed custom, but the chief end of the meeting was to break 
bread. Paul says to the Corinthians: "Upon the first day 
of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God 
hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I 
come." (1 Cor. 16: 2.) He said he had given the same 
directions to all the churches throughout the country of Ga- 
latia. A proper translation would be put in the treasury. 
The word translated lay by in store literally means place in 
the treasury. The reason assigned, "that there be no gath- 
erings when I come," shows that it was not to be left at 
their respective houses, but to be gathered together by the 
time Paul reached them. It was to be gathered through 
contributing on the first day. It was the fellowship con- 
nected with the breaking of bread, as recorded in Acts 2 : 
52. This was a part of the worship in which the disciples 
steadfastly engaged in their meetings. It was to be at- 
tended to on the first day of the week. The apostle Paul 
commanded the disciples: "Not forsaking the assembling 
of ourselves together, as the manner of some is." (Heb. 
10: 25.) There is no assembling given by divine require- 
ment, in either precept or example, to the disciples, except 
that on the first day of the week. It must, then, be a com- 
mand not to forsake assembling upon the first day of the 
week. 



572 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Jesus Christ consecrated the day by his triumph over 
death, hell, and the grave, and his resurrection from the 
dead. The day also is a monument of his resurrection. 
He met with his disciples on the two first days succeeding 
his resurrection. He did not meet with them on the sev- 
enth day. The disciples followed his example. Paul fol- 
lowed Christ in this and met with the disciples to break 
bread. He says to Christians: "Follow me, as I follow 
Christ." Then continuous history shows the churches 
from the beginning continued the practice, a few Judaiz- 
ers only objecting. They taught circumcision and the 
whole Mosaic law. The plea now for a return to the sev- 
enth day is a part of the same Judaizing tendency. It is 
an ignoring of Christ and a return to Judaism. It strikes 
down the monument of his resurrection. In the teachings 
of our Seventh-Day friends will be found a depreciation of 
Christ and his mission running through all their parts. 
His word, his authority, with them is not equal with the 
teaching of the Father. They talk of God's law as superior 
to his teaching, as if the fullness of the Godhead did not 
dwell in him bodily. Its tendency and results are to ignore 
his majesty and destroy his authority. It is to strike Christ 
from the plan of redemption. This may be unconsciously 
done, but it is only so much the more surely effected. 

Those who regard Christ as the great central figure of 
the plan of redemption will not ignore the day that de- 
clares his victory over death and hell — his resurrection that 
gave hope to man. It was the beginning and guarantee of 
the spiritual reign on earth. It was meet that in the 
earthly institution, with earthly promises, the completion 
of the work of creation should be celebrated. It is meet 
that in the spiritual creation the spiritual triumph over the 
evil spirit should be celebrated. The day in which a new 
spiritual kingdom on earth is guaranteed will be gratefully 
remembered by all who honor and love the Savior. D. L. 

SABBATH, MUST WE KEEP THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I want you to explain through the 
columns of the Gospel Advocate whether, according to the last will 
and testament, we are expected to keep the Sabbath day holy, mak- 
ing it a day of rest, as was practiced by the Jews — or, in other words, 
if it should be kept as the seventh day, as Adventists teach. 

There is not one syllable of authority in the New Testa- 
ment for the observance of the Sabbath day. The observ- 
ance of the Sabbath day was one of the commandments of 
the law of Moses. In that law the Jewish people were re- 
quired to keep every seventh day as a holy Sabbath, and 
the man that should violate the requirements of that day 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 573 

was to bear his iniquity. The law of Moses was positive 
and unyielding in regard to it. The man that was found 
gathering sticks on the Sabbath day was stoned to death 
for disregarding the divine law on this subject. Not only 
was the seventh day required of the Jews as a Sabbath, or 
day of rest, but every seventh year was a sabbatical year. 
The Jews were not allowed to cultivate their lands on the 
seventh year nor to gather that which grew of itself ; that 
was to be left for the poor of the land and for the stranger. 
Also every fiftieth year was to be observed as a year of ju- 
bilee. Servants were to go out free on that year, and other 
such like things to be done in the jubilee year. But when 
Christ died, all these commandments and ordinances were 
taken away. Paul says : "Blotting out the handwriting of 
ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, 
and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross." (Col. 
2: 14.) This handwriting of ordinances that was blotted 
out and taken out of the way was certainly the law of 
Moses, which contained the ordinances both of the Sabbath 
day and of the Sabbath year. These ordinances, therefore, 
are disannulled. They have waxed old and have been laid 
aside, taken out of the way. 

Adventists may just as sensibly and as scripturally claim 
the observance of the seventh year and of the fiftieth year 
as of the seventh day. If one is in force, so are the others. 
But, then, the Adventists claim that the Ten Command- 
ments were not taken away. The Ten Commandments 
were engraven on stones by the Lord himself and given to 
Moses. No matter how many other things pertaining to 
the covenant through Moses were written on those tables, 
the Ten Commandments certainly were. The observance 
of the Sabbath day was one of those commandments, and, 
therefore, was engraven on the stones. Paul says of all 
these ordinances which were engraven in stones: "But if 
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, 
was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stead- 
fastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his counte- 
nance ; which glory was to be done away : how shall not the 
ministration of the spirit be rather glorious ? . . . For 
if that which is done away was glorious, much more that 
which remaineth is glorious." (2 Cor. 3: 7-11.) In this 
passage Paul was contrasting the law of Moses with the 
gospel of Christ, showing that the law engraven on tables 
of stone, which embraced the Sabbath day, was done away ; 
while the gospel, the new covenant, remains, and is more 
glorious than that which was done away. This is proof 
positive that the Sabbath day was done away, together 



574 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

with the ordinances of the law of Moses. Again, Paul says 
of Christ: 'Tor he is our peace, who hath made both one, 
and hath broken down the middle wall of partition be- 
tween us; having abolished in the flesh the enmity, even 
the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to 
make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 
and that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by 
the cross, having slain the enmity thereby." Christ abol- 
ished in his flesh the enmity, the law of commandments con- 
tained in ordinances. To abolish is to put down, to bring 
to an end, to take away. The law of commandments is the 
law of Moses. The Sabbath day was one of those com- 
mandments, and, therefore, done away. He did this 
through his flesh, which was at his death. There can be 
no doubt, therefore, but that the Sabbath day was done 
away when Christ died. He is the end of the law. The 
law was added because of transgressions till the promised 
seed — that is, Christ — should come ; but through him it was 
to be, and was, done away — done away through his flesh, 
nailing it to his cross. 

Just as well clamor for the seventh year or for animal 
sacrifice as to clamor for the seventh day. All of them 
are dead. The first day of the week is not the Sabbath 
day in any sense. It is unscriptural and untrue to call it 
such. The whole denominational world is in error on this 
subject. They say that God has required man to rest one 
day in seven, and that under Christianity the day has been 
changed from the seventh to the first day of the week, but 
that it is the Sabbath still. This is all assumption on their 
part. The Bible nowhere says that God has required man 
to rest one day in seven. In the Old Testament, God re- 
quired man to rest on the seventh day, not one day in seven ; 
but, as we have shown, this day, with all the ordinances of 
the law, was done away in Christ ; and now a new day, the 
first day of the week, is the day upon which the people of 
God are to meet to worship him. The habit of calling this 
the Sabbath day has a tendency to make the impression 
upon the people that if they rest from labor on the first 
day of the week they fill the requirements of the first day 
of the week. Under this impression, doubtless, many of 
those claiming to be the disciples of Christ stay at home 
instead of meeting with their brethren to break bread, sup- 
posing that as they rested from labor that day they did 
about all that was needful ; whereas the Lord's day, as ap- 
pointed in the New Testament, is the day upon which Chris- 
tians are required to meet to worship him. Hence, those 
that merely stay at home and rest from labor do not honor 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 575 

the Lord at all, for they do not do what the Lord requires 
to be done on that day. Hence, the Seventh-Day Advent- 
ists are perverting the word of the Lord in two respects. 
They are reestablishing what God has taken away, and 
they are ignoring the first day of the week — the day that 
God has appointed on which his people are to meet to break 
bread. One of their preachers in this State used to go to 
our meetinghouses occasionally and preach on the first day 
of the week, and, when he was done preaching, would leave 
the house while the brethren were breaking bread. Thus 
they utterly pervert and ignore the ways and appointments 
of the Lord. We must let that alone which God has abol- 
ished. He has abolished the Sabbath day, and, therefore, 
it should be let alone. But that which God now requires 
under Christianity, under the new and everlasting covenant, 
must be done. Christians are required to observe the first 
day of the week by meeting on that day to break bread. 
The Seventh-Day Adventists are causing divisions, here- 
sies, in some sections of the country by disregarding the 
Lord's day and its worship and by substituting instead 
thereof the Sabbath day, which has been done away for 
more than eighteen hundred years. Such heresies and her- 
etics should be avoided. E. G. S. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I want you to send me some in- 
formation in regard to the Sabbath day advocated by the Seventh- 
Day Adventists. 

The Sabbath day that is advocated by the Seventh-Day 
Adventists is the Sabbath day of the Jewish law. They 
claim that the Ten Commandments are still in force, in- 
cluding the old Sabbath, which is our Saturday. They do 
not regard the obligations of the Lord's day as of any im- 
portance^ while the Scriptures plainly teach that the law, 
which includes the Ten Commandments, was taken out of 
the way when Christ died upon the cross, and that the dis- 
ciples are to meet on the first day of the week to break 
bread in remembrance of Jesus. Thus they throw out one 
of the most important items of the New Testament and try 
to resuscitate an ordinance of the Old that God has thrown 
out. 

Brother Sewell: I have a friend and brother, who lately came over 
from the Baptists, who has called on me for scriptural proof that the 
Sabbath is done away. Please give us an article in the Gospel Ad- 
vocate on that subject. 

In the first place, the Sabbath day was purely and em- 
phatically a Jewish ordinance. So far as the Bible records, 
men were never called upon to keep the Sabbath till the 



576 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Jews were called out of Egypt by Moses. When the manna 
was given, the Jews were forbidden to gather it on the 
Sabbath day. (Ex. 16: 22, 23.) When the Ten Com- 
mandments were given, the keeping of the Sabbath by those 
people was made one of the ten, and thus it became part 
of the law of Moses. The Ten Commandments embodied 
the moral principles of the law, while other requirements 
written by Moses at the command of God applied these 
principles to the daily lives of the Jewish people. The 
law of Moses, therefore, contained the Ten Commandments, 
and the other requirements written by Moses as God di- 
rected made up what is called "the law of God by Moses." 
It is called "the law of the Lord ;" God spoke of it as "my 
law ;" and in many ways was it spoken of as the word, the 
law of God. This was God's written law to the Jews till 
the fullness of time came for God to take this old law, this 
old covenant, out of the way and establish the new one. 
When Christ died, the old covenant, the law of Moses, was 
abolished. Paul says of this matter: "Blotting out the 
handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was 
contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his 
cross." (Col. 2: 14.) This passage covers the whole of 
what was called "the law of Moses," the law of God, the old 
covenant, including the Sabbath day, blotting out the whole 
business, taking it out of the way. It thoroughly knocks 
out the Sabbath day. It is equally certain also that the 
Sabbath day was not reincorporated into the new covenant, 
the new dispensation. The moral principles of the law of 
the other nine commandments were renewed in some form 
in the new covenant, but the Sabbath law never was. So it 
is of no more authority now than animal sacrifice or the 
burning of incense. It is forever set aside. Every time 
men undertake to keep the Sabbath day now they destroy 
the first day of the week, which is an appointment of the 
new covenant, setting it and all the appointments con- 
nected with it aside and trampling under foot the blood of 
Christ, putting him and all that was sanctified with his 
blood to an open shame. 

There is absolutely nothing in the seventh-day theory to 
rest even the shadow of hope upon. The claim is based on 
something that was taken out of the way nearly two thou- 
sand years ago and has never been reenacted in any shape 
or form or for any purpose. Besides, it never belonged to 
the Gentile world when in force; yet Gentiles are the very 
ones that are trying to resuscitate the lifeless thing in which 
they never had any part. Why, then, not cling to a living, 
reigning, all-merciful and all-powerful Savior, who is able 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 577 

and willing to save all who come to God by him, and let 
dead issues remain where God has placed them? The sev- 
enth-day theory is not only a dead issue that has no life, 
no power to save, but it turns people away from Christ and 
his blood and his power to save and from his great and 
precious promises. 

SABBATH, WAS THE, CHANGED TO THE FIRST DAY 
OF THE WEEK? 

I would be glad if David Lipscomb would write an article in the 
Gospel Advocate stating who changed the Sabbath from the seventh 
to the first day of the week and by what authority it was changed. 
Give scripture authority, book and verse. 

The Sabbath never was changed from the seventh to the 
first day of the week. The seventh day was the only Sab- 
bath. The Sabbath law and the scripture on the first day 
of the week do not have any connection with each other, 
so far as we know. We might argue that as the Lord set 
apart one day for rest in the Jewish dispensation, which 
later became a day of worship to God, it is an indication 
that it is for man's good that one day in the week shall be 
taken from all secular business and consecrated to the 
service of God. Yet the Sabbath day was not originally 
made a day of worship, but one simply of rest and quiet. 
We have no account of its being commanded or observed, 
save among the Jewish people after the days of Moses. It 
was first announced in the wilderness a few days before 
the giving of the law on Sinai. God tells Moses that the 
Sabbath should be observed. It was then written on ta- 
bles, of stone as one of the Ten Commandments. The law 
as explained by Moses was: "Six days shall work be done, 
but on the seventh day there shall be to you a holy day, a 
Sabbath of rest to the Lord : whosoever doeth work therein 
shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout 
your habitations upon the Sabbath day." No manna could 
be gathered, no food cooked. The man who gathered sticks 
to kindle a fire to prepare a meal on the Sabbath was 
stricken dead. 

The only authority found in the book of God for the Sab- 
bath is the law given by Moses written on the tables of 
stone. There is no account of its having been given to any 
other people than the Jewish people. 

When the Savior came, he spoke concerning the Sabbath. 
Every record made concerning it shows that he was as- 
serting his superiority to the Sabbath. In Mark 2: 21, 22 
he tells you cannot put new wine in old bottles, or a patch 
on an old garment, then has his disciples to pass through 



578 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the fields and gather corn and eat on the Sabbath. He 
justifies them. The Sabbath was for man. The Son of 
man is Lord of the Sabbath, claiming his power to control 
or abrogate the Sabbath law. He healed the afflicted on 
the Sabbath and justified the taking of the ox or ass out of 
the pit. 

Sometimes persons say Jesus only corrected the abuses 
of the Sabbath by rescuing it from the extreme interpre- 
tation placed on it by the scribes and Pharisees. This is 
not true, as any one can see by examining the law. The 
law forbids gathering the manna, cooking the food, building 
a fire. Christ justified going into the cornfields, gathering, 
rubbing out, and eating the corn, or wheat. He was as- 
serting his power over the Sabbath and his right to annul it. 

Jesus came to fulfill the law and, in fulfilling it, to take it 
out of the way. He rested in the grave on the Sabbath 
and arose on the first day of the week. He met with his 
disciples on the first day. He passed over seven interven- 
ing days until the next first day, when he met with them 
again. The Holy Spirit descended on the first day of the 
week on Pentecost, and the disciples met on the first day 
of the week to break bread. 

The Holy Spirit, in all the epistles of Paul to the churches, 
draws the distinction between the old and new testaments, 
the law and the gospel, the law written on the tables of 
stone and the law of the Spirit written in fleshly tables of 
the heart. All show that the old testament, based on fleshly 
relations, was done away, taken out of the way; and the 
new, ministered by the Spirit of God, was ordained to re- 
main in perpetual force. "Who also hath made us able min- 
isters of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the 
spirit : for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But 
if the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, 
was glorious ; . . . which glory was to be done away : 
how shall not the ministration of the spirit be rather glo- 
rious?" (2 Cor. 3: 6-8.) In Galatians he compares the 
two covenants to Sarah and Hagar, and says: "Cast out 
the bondwoman and her son." This is repeated under va- 
rious forms in all the epistles to the churches. Now, if the 
law written on tables of stone is the only law requiring this 
Sabbath observance and it has been taken out of the way. 
on what ground can it be claimed to be in force? The apos- 
tles went into the synagogues on the Sabbath day, just as 
they went to the market places or other places where they 
could find the people, to teach them. But no example can 
be found of their meeting for worship on the Sabbath. 
Our brother may have had in his mind the foolish claim 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 579 

made by some that Constantine ordained the first day as 
the day of worship. The man that will make such a state- 
ment is either remarkably ignorant or recklessly dishonest. 
Constantine ordained the first day of the week as the day 
of rest and religious observance, exactly as the State of 
Tennessee does it. A great number of his subjects were 
Christians. He became favorable to the Christian religion. 
He found them observing the first day of the week as their 
day of worship and rest from secular labor, and because 
they were observing this day he decreed his subjects should 
all observe that as the day of rest from secular business. 
The act of Constantine is clear evidence that the Chris- 
tians observed the first day before his time, as he aimed to 
make the laws of his kingdom conform to their practice. 
It seems to me that this is satisfactory. D. L. 

SABBATH, THE "HIGH," AND WHAT "THIRD DAY?" 

Brother Sewell: (1) On which of our week days did the high Sab- 
bath occur? (John 19: 31.) (2) Speaking of the resurrection of 
Christ, Matt. 16: 21 says that he would be raised again "the third 
day." It could not have been the third day of his death, for there 
was but one day of his death; nor could it have been the third day of 
his burial, for there was but one day of his burial; nor could it have 
been the third day of his death and burial, for both occurred on one 
and the same day. The "third day" of what, then? (3) The first 
day of the week, the day on which Christ rose from the dead, being 
"the third day since these things were done" (Luke 24: 21), on what 
day of the week were "these things" done, and what were the things 
done? 

(1) We understand that it was Saturday, the day of the 
Jewish Sabbath. At the time spoken of in this verse the 
passover Sabbath and the seventh-day Sabbath both fell on 
the same day, and evidently for that reason it was called a 
high Sabbath. The passover was to be eaten on the night 
of the fourteenth day of the first month. The fifteenth 
day of the same month was to be a holy convocation day, 
on which no servile work was to be done. This holy con- 
vocation day falling that year on the same day as the 
weekly Sabbath caused John to say it was a high (or great) 
Sabbath, a sort of double Sabbath. So at that time they 
were to prepare for the regular Sabbath and for the holy 
convocation day at the same time, on the same day. In 
the Old Testament laws concerning Sabbath days there is 
nothing about a high Sabbath day. This is the only in- 
stance of a high Sabbath mentioned. The language of that 
same verse indicates this was the real Jewish Sabbath: 
"The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, .that 
the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the Sabbath 
day." The expression, the Sabbath day, always means, in 



580 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the Bible, the seventh-day Sabbath. I have not been able 
to find an exception to this. So this high Sabbath was 
called such because the holy convocation day of the pass- 
over fell on the weekly Sabbath day. Such is the conclusion 
of the leading Bible scholars of the world. 

(2) The third day is plainly the third day of the whole 
tragical affair of the crucifixion and burial of Christ, and 
the time he lay in the grave, up to and including the day he 
arose from the dead. This is a perfectly natural conclu- 
sion from the language used by the Savior in foretelling 
his death. He said that he "must go to Jerusalem, and suf- 
fer many things of the elders and the chief priests and 
scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day." 
The only natural way of determining the third day is to link 
it with what occurred the two preceding days, and that is 
easy. On the first of the two preceding days he was cru- 
cified and buried, on the second he lay in the grave, and on 
the third he rose from the dead. Paul also said : "How 
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 
and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third 
day according to the scriptures." (1 Cor. 15: 3, 4.) From 
these passages and others like them it is as plain as any- 
thing on record that the third day, the day on which he was 
raised from the dead, was the third day of the wonderful 
events — the crucifixion, the time in the grave, and his res- 
urrection. The fact that the third day was the first day 
of the week, Sunday, or Lord's day, shows that the whole 
affair included Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, or the first 
day of the week; and the expression, the third day, fixes 
the whole affair so definitely that it is impossible to extend 
the time before or beyond these three days. 

(3) This question is answered in the preceding. You 
will find the things that were done fully explained in verses 
19, 20, immediately preceding verse 21, which you quote. 
When we take plain Bible facts as stated, we have no trou- 
ble to understand them ; but when we undertake to build a 
theory not expressed in Bible language, we are sure to come 
in conflict with some of the expressed facts. Then the the- 
ory ought to be dropped and simply stand on the facts. 

Brother Sewell: Will you please explain John 19: 31: "For that 
Sabbath day was a high day?" It seems not to have been a regular 
weekly Sabbath, but a high day. 

This Sabbath is called a high day because it was a double 
Sabbath — that is, a weekly Sabbath and a passover Sab- 
bath. In the seven days of unleavened bread connected 
with the passover, the first and seventh days were to be 
days of rest. No work was to be done on those days. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 581 

Sometimes one of these days and the weekly Sabbath would 
come together, as in this case; and hence it was called a 
high day. 

SALARY, STATED, FOR PREACHING. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: When a preacher admits that he 
cannot put up a scriptural argument in favor of a stated yearly sal- 
ary, and yet he will not preach for a church without it, what would 
be the right course for the church to pursue as regards him? Also, 
when a congregation has set apart one gifted for the ministry, and he 
lives in the vicinity and refuses to preach for that congregation 
without any excuse, how should they act toward him? 

The church ought to do its own preaching. The churches 
are usually to blame for the unwillingness of the preachers 
to trust them. We never would contract to preach a year 
for a church for so much per year or otherwise, but we 
never saw a congregation that in its practice we would 
trust to support our family on an indefinite promise to sup- 
port us. The remissness of the congregations and the in- 
dividual members in their duty of sustaining a brother 
spending his time in the work that belongs to the church 
has given them good ground for distrust. 

The remedy that we would propose for the first difficulty 
is that the congregation should raise in cash a sufficiency 
of money to sustain a brother a specified time, place it in 
the hands of the treasurer, subject to his call as he needs 
it, and tell him to go to work and call for it as he needs it. 
Then, by promptness and care for his wants thereafter, 
convince him that he can trust the church to do its duty. 
There is just the same scripture for a stated salary that 
there is for a preacher preaching statedly to a church for a 
stated time. 

The style in which churches usually discharge their ob- 
ligations to those who labor for them is simply disgraceful. 
They ought to be made to feel that they are unworthy of 
trust. A preacher that comes along and gets up something 
of a revival is usually pretty well paid. Others who do the 
harder work are treated shabbily. 

We know of no obligation an evangelist is under to preach 
to any congregation save as he finds it not in order. If he 
is doing his duty in preaching to the world, who know not 
the truth, the duty of his congregation is to sustain him 
heartily in the work and send often to supply his necessi- 
ties. If he will not preach at all, or is hunting a big salary, 
putting himself up to the highest bidder, he is a corrupter 
of the church, and all ought to be thankful he does not 
preach for them. D. L. 



582 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

SALVATION, "THE COMMON." 

Brother Sewell: In the general epistle of Jude, commencing at 
verse 3, we read as follows: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to 
write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to 
write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for 
the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are 
certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to 
this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into 
lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus 
Christ." Now, what I want to know is, in speaking of the common 
salvation, does the inspired writer have reference to salvation under 
the present dispensation or the Jewish dispensation? Unaware of 
whom did they creep in, and of whom were they ordained? Were 
they ordained of the Lord, and have we no account of why he or- 
dained them for that purpose? As the above has troubled me a great 
deal, I hope you will give me some information. 

The common salvation spoken of by Jude is, doubtless, 
salvation from sin through the gospel of Christ, which is 
common, or alike, to all who are saved. All who are saved 
from sin are saved alike ; and in this sense salvation is com- 
mon to all, for all are saved alike. The word common in 
this passage means belonging equally to several, and with- 
out doubt refers to salvation by the gospel of Christ, which 
is just the same to all. Paul alludes to the same thing 
when, in writing to Titus, he says, "Mine own son after the 
common faith," meaning the faith of the gospel. 

The bad characters spoken of in the passage are wicked 
persons that crept into the church without the members 
knowing at the time that they were wicked ; hence, unaware 
to the church. The ordination spoken of means that God 
has from olden times ordained that such characters as 
those mentioned in this passage should be destroyed. The 
Lord did not ordain that these men, nor any others, should 
become wicked, but that those who by their own bad con- 
duct become wicked shall be destroyed. E. G. S. 

SALVATION CAME TO ZACCHEUS, HOW. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain how it was and on 
what conditions did salvation come to Zaccheus and his house, ex- 
plaining also the expression: "Forsomuch as he also is a son of 
Abraham." Had Zaccheus been accustomed to give half his goods 
to the poor, or was such action the fruit of repentance? 

The language of the Savior to Zaccheus, saying to him, 
"This day is salvation come to this house," is to be under- 
stood this way : The Jews generally did not recognize Christ 
as the Son of God nor treat him as such; but Zaccheus, 
though a despised publican, received the Savior joyfully, 
recognizing him to be all that he claimed to be — the Savior 
of sinners, the Son of God. He indicated also that he was 
serving God to the best of his ability under the law of 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 583 

Moses, which was still in force, showing that he was a 
faithful servant, child of God under the law. The other 
Jews, that regarded Zaccheus as a sinner, were not them- 
selves faithful to the law, nor did they receive Christ as the 
Son of God. Jesus, therefore, by this expression shows 
that Zaccheus, though despised by his countrymen because 
he was a publican, was a true servant of God, and his ac- 
tion in joyfully receiving the Savior showed him to be 
such ; and because he thus received him, Christ says : "This 
day is salvation come to this house." He only did what 
every Jew should have done. To every one now that does 
what the Lord requires through the gospel, will joyfully 
obey the gospel, salvation will come the same day. 

E. G. S. 

SANCTIFICATION. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) I want you to explain 1 Cor. 3: 6. (2) 
What does the word sanctify mean? (3) Did Christ or any of the 
apostles teach the second work of grace? (4) When is a Christian 
made perfect? 

(1) This verse means Paul first preached the gospel to 
the Corinthians, Apollos taught them after they became 
Christians, and God through the teaching of the two gave 
a blessing to those people, first taught by Paul, then by 
Apollos. 

(2) The word sanctify means to set apart or sanctify a 
person to the service of God. All Christians are called 
sanctified, or saints. You find the Corinthians are called 
the sanctified, saints. (1 Cor. 1, 2.) All who hear the 
word of God and walk by it are sanctified. Jesus prayed 
that his disciples might be sanctified in or by the truth. 
(John 17 : 19.) Any one devoting himself to doing the will 
of God is sanctified by it. 

(3) The Bible knows nothing of a first and second work 
of grace. One accepts the truth, and in keeping that truth 
there is a gradual and successful growth in grace. If one 
starts out and falls away, then starts again, this is a work 
of grace ; but it is the old one started again, not a new one. 

(4) A Christian is made perfect only as he ceases to sin. 
They are perfect in their day and generation when they 
come up to the standard of the age. 

Brother Sewell: I am in a neighborhood where the "Holiness" 
people are in force. They think we should not ask God to forgive 
us our sins when we offer thanks or pray. They claim to be free 
from sin, and quote 1 John 1 : 9 to prove that they are free from sin. 
They claim that sanctification removes and completely eradicates car- 
nality. They teach sinless perfection, and they quote 1 John 3: 8, 9. 
They claim to be wholly sanctified, and claim sanctification as a sec- 



584 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ond work of grace. Please give all the light you can on this sub- 
ject, for I want to honor God by doing his will and not my own. 

The whole matter of the modern holiness, or sanctifica- 
tion, is claimed upon an entirely unscriptural basis. It is 
claimed as a second blessing, and that upon the assumption 
that they had already received a first blessing of like nature. 
The first blessing is claimed to have taken place in conver- 
sion, in the remission of sins, all of which they claim was 
brought about by an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, 
by which they claim to have got religion. But there is no 
such conversion as this taught in the Bible from beginning 
to end. Hence, no such first blessing is to be found on rec- 
ord at all. The conversion that is taught in the New Testa- 
ment is most certainly effected by the Holy Spirit, but not 
by any sort of abstract operation. It is the teaching of the 
Spirit, telling sinners what to do to be saved, through the 
inspired apostles, as found in Acts 2, when about three 
thousand were thus converted. But modern Holiness peo- 
ple cannot find one conversion after their idea of getting 
religion through an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit, 
if their lives depended on it. Neither can they find one 
single example of any man's being made holy by any sort 
of an abstract operation of the Spirit of God. If they 
could find one such case, that would settle the possibility of 
such thing; but they do not and cannot. Hence, if we ac- 
cept their claim on it, we have to accept it purely and en- 
tirely upon their say so, without one precept or example for 
it in all the oracles of God. They will have to produce bet- 
ter authority than this before any child of God can afford 
to accept it. The holiness of the New Testament is some- 
thing to be sought and obtained by doing the will of God. 
Jesus prayed his Father to sanctify his disciples through 
the word of truth. He said : "Sanctify them in the truth : 
thy word is truth. . . . And for their sakes I sanctify 
myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in 
truth." (John 17: 17-19.) No one can be sanctified in 
or through the truth unless he obeys the truth. The truth 
makes people free from sin, but not till they learn and obey 
the truth. Jesus said to the Jews that believed on him: 
"If ye abide in my word, then are ye truly my disciples ; 
and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you 
free." (John 8: 31, 32.) Hence, people that abide in the 
word of God, continue to obey that word, are free from sin, 
and are, therefore, holy. Hence, no man can be holy while 
in disregard of the word of God. Very many of those 
claiming to be holy in the modern Holiness school have 
never been baptized, and hence are living in disobedience to 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 585 

that divine command. They have had a little water sprin- 
kled upon them, but that is not baptism. They do not meet 
regularly on the first day of the week to break bread. They 
live in continual disregard also of the word of Jesus when 
he says: "And forgive us our debts, as we also have for- 
given our debtors." (Matt. 6: 12.) This means: "For- 
give us our sins, as we also have forgiven the sins of oth- 
ers. " (See also verses 14, 15.) These things were ad- 
dressed to the disciples of Christ, and apply to such now. 
Those, therefore, that claim they are so holy and pure that 
they do not need to pray for pardon make themselves bet- 
ter than the apostles claimed to be. When Paul had been 
preaching nearly twenty-five years, he said: "But I buffet 
my body, and bring it into bondage: lest by any means, 
after that I have preached to others, I myself should be re- 
jected." (1 Cor. 9: 27.) Paul never considered himself 
to be exempt from temptation, nor that he was free from 
danger of sin and the loss of his soul. The apostle John 
said : "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 
and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is 
faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse 
us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not 
sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us." 
(1 John 1: 8-10.) Even the loving apostle John does not 
claim entire freedom from sin, in that he puts himself into 
the number that sin by saying we and us; and he was an 
old man when he wrote this letter. It was nearly sixty 
years after he had been first called to be an apostle. 

As to the passage named in chapter 3, in which John 
says one born of God does not and cannot sin, he was there 
showing the difference between the children of God and the 
children of the devil, meaning that the children of God 
make it their business to serve God, while wicked people 
make no such pretense. They live in sin all the time, while 
the children of God strive to serve God all the time. But 
in the verses quoted from the first chapter the same apostle 
is showing that all are liable to sin, and sometimes do sin, 
through the weakness of the flesh. Man is not relieved 
from his flesh-and-blood nature while in mortal life, and 
while that lasts the best Christians may sometimes do 
wrong ; but if they will repent of these wrongs, confess them 
to God, and pray, God promises to forgive. 

So there is no conflict between these two passages ; both 
were dictated by the Holy Spirit through the same man. 
Hence, to be sanctified in the New Testament sense is to 
become a Christian and strive to always live the Christian 
life as the word of the Lord directs. But whenever a child 



586 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of God thinks he is exempted from sin and cannot sin, he 
is then in danger of being led captive by the devil at his 
will, for he is then entirely off his guard and no longer 
watching. 

Brother Lipscomb: I would life to ask you some questions for in- 
formation. 

1. Does man grow into sanctification, or is it a second work of 
grace? 

2. Can a man live above sin? 

3. If a man commits one sin a day, is he not a servant of sin, 
though he may pray many times a day? Does repentance mean to 
quit the sin business? 

4. Will God forgive unless we quit? 

5. Does repentance mean to quit or taper off — which? 

6. If a man turns his back on sin, will he be holy? 

7. Can a man get to heaven without holiness? 

1. Sanctification means set apart or devoted to a work. 
In the Bible it means set apart to the service of God. All 
Christians are called saints, or sanctified ones. It has ac- 
quired in later years a meaning of sinlessness. In 1 Cor. 
1 : 1 all the Christians at Corinth are called saints. The 
letter shows they were far from sinless, but desired to serve 
God, hindered by fleshly lusts and weaknesses. There is 
no such thing known in the Scriptures as the first and sec- 
ond blessing. There is a growth in grace. By constant 
study of and obedience to the word of God and watchfulness 
of ourselves in bringing our lives, thoughts, and feelings 
into harmony with the will of God, we grow in grace and 
the knowledge of the truth and become nearer the divine 
standard. 

2. 'There is no man that liveth, and sinneth not." "If 
we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is 
not in us." (1 John 1 : 8, 10.) A man's heart may be per- 
fect toward God, but so long as he is in the flesh he will sin 
either by omission or commission. Jesus himself refused 
to be called good. "There is none good but one, that is, 
God." All claims to be sinless are presumptuous. 

3. He is not a servant of sin unless it reigns in and rules 
over him. When he intentionally and purposely sins, he is 
the slave of sin. Repentance means to turn from the pur- 
pose and practice of sin. Repentance demands the confes- 
sion of sins, the ceasing to sin, the correcting all the wrongs 
we have committed against God or our fellow men to the 
extent of our ability. 

4. God cannot forgive our sins until we quit sinning and 
correct the wrongs we have done. This means when 
through weakness we fall into sin we must confess the sin, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 587 

correct the wrong, and ask God to forgive us our wrong 
and strengthen us to avoid the wrong in the future. 

5. A man cannot taper off from sins in the sight of God. 
He will always taper the wrong way. 

6. Holiness means separation from sin. Man becomes 
holy when he ceases to sin, and he grows in holiness as he 
grows in sanctification. 

7. "Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without 
which no man shall see the Lord." (Heb. 12: 14.) But, 
as said, holiness is progressive. There is holiness of heart 
or purpose, holiness of state, and holiness of life. There 
are degrees of holiness. Man in the flesh does not obtain 
perfect holiness of life. 

"SANCTIFY," MEANING OF. 

Brother Lipscomb: What does the word sanctify mean? Please 
explain 1 Cor. 7: 14; 1 Tim. 4: 5. Please explain the so-called "Ho- 
liness" people's claim that one has to be sanctified or he is lost, and 
their claim that sanctification is living- beyond the reproach of sin. 

Sanctify means to separate to a holy or sacred use. All 
persons or things set apart to the service of God are sanc- 
tified, according to the Scripture use of the term. The first 
use of the word in the Bible is in Gen. 2:3: "God blessed 
the seventh day, and sanctified it." This means he set it 
apart for his service. No common or secular work must 
be done on that day. The day in itself had no quality, 
good or bad ; but it must be devoted to the service of God. 
The next use of it is found in Ex. 13 : 2 : "Sanctify unto me 
all the first-born, whatsoever openeth the womb among the 
children of Israel, both of man and of beast; it is mine." 
The first-born of man and beast were sanctified to God's 
service. That did not mean they were sinless. The ani- 
mals had no moral qualities of sin or sinlessness, and the 
first-born of men were not sinless. They might be guilty 
of many sins, yet they were still sanctified to the service 
of God. Even the first-born of unclean animals were sanc- 
tified to the service of God ; and if not redeemed by a clean 
animal, it was to be killed. It could not be used for com- 
mon or secular purposes. The tribe of Levi was taken in 
place of the first-born, and the whole family of Levi was 
sanctified to the service of the Lord around the temple. 
This did not mean they were sinless, nor was sinlessness 
expected of them ; but they were required to devote them- 
selves to the works of God around the temple. They often 
sinned, but that did not unsanctify them. The priests 
were sanctified to the service within the temple, but they 
were not sinless. They had to cleanse and purify their 



588 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

flesh before they could enter the sanctuary of God. But 
sanctification does not imply sinlessness. It implied they 
were to devote themselves to the service of God, not to the 
common callings of life. The temple was sanctified, all the 
vessels of service, all the animals sacrificed. The Mount 
Sinai was sanctified : "If a beast but touch it, it shall die." 
A thing set apart to the service of God was sanctified. 
Then it could not be used for secular purposes unless re- 
deemed. 

The disciples of Christ were sanctified by putting on 
Christ — that is, they were set apart to the service of God. 
They were redeemed and sanctified by the blood of Christ, 
and by the Spirit of God are guided in that service. Jesus 
prayed for his apostles : "Sanctify ["consecrate" — marginal 
reading] them in the truth : thy word is truth. ... I 
sanctify myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified 
in truth." (John 17: 17-19, A. R. V.) They were set 
apart to the declaration of the truth by teaching and prac- 
tice. The church of God at Corinth were "sanctified in 
Christ Jesus," notwithstanding they were guilty of many 
wrongs. Jesus died that he might sanctify the church 
(Eph. 5 : 25, 26) — set it apart to the service of God. Rom. 
15 : 16 says the Gentiles were "sanctified by the Holy 
Spirit." It means they were called into the service of God 
by the Spirit. A sanctified person is a saint. All Chris- 
tians are called saints in the Scriptures. (1 Cor. 1:2; 
Rom. 1:7; Acts 9: 13.) All Christians consecrate them- 
selves to the service of God and are, in Scripture language, 
sanctified to that service, or made saints. There are de- 
grees in the work of consecrating themselves to the service 
of God. Some are more faithful than others. This is 
called sanctifying themselves wholly. To grow in faithful 
obedience to the will of God is to become more fully sanc- 
tified. There is a gradual growth in sanctification, as there 
is in obeying the truth of God. 

Sanctification is a growth to be worked out by the Chris- 
tian, not a special gift from God. Our modern sanctifica- 
tionists mistake entirely the means of attaining sanctifica- 
tion. It is something to be worked out and lived, not 
something to be gotten and professed. They take the wrong 
name. One who professes or pretends to sanctify is sanc- 
timonious, not sanctified. Sanctimonious is to profess or 
pretend to special sanctity. 

One thing we ought to remember: A person or thing 
under the Jewish law once sanctified to the service of God 
could never be afterwards used for a common or unholy 
purpose. Better for a person never to have known the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 589 

truth than, after he has known it, to turn again from the 
service of God to "the weak and beggarly elements of the 
world." 

1 Cor. 7 : 14 means the man and woman by marriage 
sanctified themselves to each other, and could not remarry 
or be guilty of fornication with others without violating 
their vow of sanctity and breaking the marriage vow and 
rendering their children illegitimate. 

The passage in 1 Tim. means that all kinds of meats 
are good for food if it be received with thanksgiving. It 
is set apart to the service of him who eats by the word of 
God and prayer — what God commands and man receives in 
prayer. 

SATAN TEMPTS MEN, HOW? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: Will you please tell us by what 
means the devil tempts men? We read in John 13: 2: "And supper 
being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Is- 
cariot, Simon's son, to betray him." "And after the sop Satan en- 
tered into him." (Verse 27.) "Be sober, be vigilant; because your 
adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom 
he may devour." (1 Pet. 5:8.) We wish to know if the devil has 
agents; if so, who are they, and what means of communication has he 
with them? 

There are two great rulers in this universe — God and 
Satan. God rules through his word, his divine institutions. 
Satan rules and influences men through the "lust of the 
flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life;" for 
John says these are not of the Father, but of the world. 
Satan is called the "prince of this world." Again, he is 
represented as "the prince of the power of the air, the 
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience." 
Satan controls the kingdoms of this world. Therefore 
when men yield to the lusts of the flesh in any way that is 
contrary to the will of God, they are yielding to the influ- 
ence of Satan. The word of God requires men to deny 
themselves and follow Jesus, do his will, obey his word. 
Men are required, in order to live the Christian and go to 
heaven, to "crucify the flesh with the affections and lusts." 
Whenever they refuse to do this, but follow the lusts of 
the flesh, they are following Satan; and when they are 
tempted to do this, they are tempted by Satan. Satan 
tempted and deceived Eve through the lusts of the eyes 
and the pride, the fleshly desires, of life. 

The influences and means through which Satan tempts 
men are as varied and extensive as the lusts of the flesh, 
the lust of the eyes, and pride of life extend. If we would 
not be tempted and drawn to ruin by Satan, then we must 



590 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

follow the word of God. This is the only safety for man. 
Whenever we are following the vain amusements of this 
world, its follies and allurements, we are following the 
temptations of Satan and going away from God and mak- 
ing Satan, not God, our leader. Paul, in 2 Tim. 2, speaks 
of persons who oppose themselves as led captive by the devil 
at his will. These were led captive by the devil by yielding 
to the sinful influences of this world, over which the devil 
presides. Hence there are many ways for us to be tempted 
by the devil. But there is just one way to be led by the 
Lord, and that is to follow his word, do the will of the Fa- 
ther in heaven. The divine agencies to help us to do right 
are as extensive as God's divine appointment and his serv- 
ants extend in their grand work for saving men. The 
wicked agencies for the temptation and ruin of men are as 
extensive as wicked men and sinful or fleshly influences 
extend; for all the wicked of this world, whatever their 
pretensions may be, are the agents of the devil to lead men 
to ruin. Many who pretend righteousness are but hypo- 
crites, and are agents of the devil to lead others astray. 

SCAPEGOAT, THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Since it is a generally conceded 
fact that nearly everything pertaining to the worship of the Jews 
prefigured something in the Christian dispensation, we wish you to 
tell us through your valuable paper what the scape goat prefigured. 

We think that the scapegoat was a prefiguring of Christ, 
who would bear our sins away. 

SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please be so kind as to answer the following 
questions so far as you are able: 

1. Do the Scriptures teach that great numbers will turn to the 
truth and be saved and a period of righteousness ensue just before 
the second coming of the Lord, or will things wax worse? 

2. Will the Savior's prayer, "That they all may be one" (John 17: 
21), be answered this side of the resurrection? 

3. When will the vision that John saw on Patmos (described in 
Rev. 21) be fulfilled? Will it be before the resurrection of the dead 
or after that event? 

4. What does Paul mean in 1 Cor. 11: 19? 

While I have but little faith in the interpretation of un- 
fulfilled prophecy, it seems that if a question comes from 
South Africa it ought to receive some attention. 

1. My impression is, before the end comes the disciples 
of the Lord will become more loyal and faithful to him. 
It will not be a large, but a loyal and faithful, body. I 
think the great masses of the Gentiles will reject God, as 
the masses of the Jews did. The following and other sim- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 591 

ilar expressions cause me to so think: "As were the days 
of Noah, so shall be the coming of the Son of man. For 
as in those days which were before the flood they were 
eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, 
until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they 
knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so 
shall be the coming of the Son of man." (Matt. 24: 37-39, 
R. V.) The masses will be evil, but a few will be more 
faithful than any heretofore have been. 

2. I think those who are his disciples will be one in this 
world. All who are guided by the word of God are one 
now; whenever there are differences, it is because one or 
both parties to the difference are not guided by the word 
of God. This failure may be the result of an honest mistake, 
but it is none the less a failure to be led by the word of 
God. Yet it is true that when men lose sight of all tra- 
ditions and customs and come to the Bible with the sole 
view of learning the will of God, they may do it ; they will 
see it alike. The trouble is to get to this singleness of pur- 
pose. 

3. I take it this is a vision of the coming of the Son of 
God. 

4. I think it means men must be tested and tried. Di- 
visions, or heresies, will exist in the churches to try them. 
They grow out of the fact that all are not Christians. 
These will produce factions and divisions and test all by 
giving all an opportunity of going into a faction who are 
so disposed. It is probable no organization will be all good. 

SECTARIANS TAKING PART IN THE WORSHIP. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it right or wrong to ask a sectarian to get 
up and read a chapter in the Bible where they take a part with us 
in the Sunday school, and should they offer prayer after reading? 

I would say it is wrong to encourage sectarianism in any 
way, if we can tell which are sectarians; but my observa- 
tion is, it takes a sectarian to ferret out a sectarian, just as 
"it takes a rogue to catch a rogue." Unfortunately, all 
the sectarians are not in sectarian churches; and I hope 
some in sectarian churches are not sectarians. Things get 
badly mixed in this world. Sometimes people who wish to 
obey God are born and raised in sectarian influences. A 
man who loves party more than he loves God is a sectarian. 
A man who divides the church of God for a theory or teach- 
ing not required by God is a sectarian. A person who 
pushes an idea or practice not required by God, to the dis- 
turbance of the peace of the church, or that exalts a hu- 



592 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

man opinion or practice to an equality with the commands 
of God, is a sectarian and a heretic. 

There are some in nonsectarian churches who are secta- 
rians, who violate the laws of God in order to oppose sec- 
tarians. They are sectarians in their opposition to sec- 
tarians. There are some in sectarian churches who will 
obey God and follow him in spite of the sectarianism of 
the churches in which they find themselves. As examples, 
there are persons in the Baptist, Methodist, and Presbyte- 
rian Churches who were baptized to obey God rather than 
to please the sects. In this they rise above the sectarian 
spirit, despite the parties in which they find themselves. 
They ought to get out of the sectarian churches, but they 
see so much sectarianism in the nonsectarian churches that 
they think they are all alike. 

Peter and John, Paul and Barnabas, all met with the 
sectarian Jews at their times and places of worship and 
participated with them, that they might find an opportunity 
to speak a word for the truth. I do not think it hurts any 
man, sectarian or sinner, to read the Bible anywhere or at 
any time. I do not think it hurts any one to hear the Bible 
read by sectarian or sinner at any time or place. The great 
end is to be true and faithful to the truth and at the same 
time kind and sympathetic with those in error. The nearer 
we can do these two things, the more like Jesus we will be 
and the more sinners and sectarians we will save. D. L. 

SECTS, COMMUNING WITH THE. 

Is it right to take the Lord's Supper with the sects? Should 
those of the Christian Church commune or take the bread and wine 
with the denominations (so called)? Do we not receive members 
into the Christian Church from the sectarians who have been im- 
mersed by those who were only sprinkled, and yet we regard their 
baptism valid — that is, those whom we receive? Then if those who 
immersed them had the right to baptize, have they not the right to set 
the Lord's table? And if they have the right to set the table or break 
bread, have they not the right to commune with us? Or should the 
Christian Church take the bread and wine only with those that are of 
the Christian Church? 

These troubles about baptism and communion have all 
arisen since sects arose. There were no such sects in the 
days of the apostles ; and, therefore, no directions are given 
as to how we ought to fraternize with them. There ought 
to be no sects, and then we would have no trouble on these 
matters. But, then, they are here among us, and it is 
sometimes difficult to determine what ought to be done in 
reference to them. One thing is evident, and that is that 
the validity of an ordinance, either baptism or the Lord's 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 593 

Supper, does not depend upon the administrator. If the 
subject is all right when immersed, his baptism is valid to 
him, whether the administrator is or not. The same, we 
think, is true with the Lord's Supper. But there are no 
instructions as to open or close communion in the Bible, 
and we cannot undertake to give any. 

SHEPHERD, THE TRUE. 

Please explain John 10: 1-3 through the Gospel Advocate. 

The intention of the Savior in these verses is to show 
that he has come into the world to be the true shepherd of 
the sheep — the Lord's people. The Jews in the preceding 
chapter had accused him of being a deceiver — that is, that 
he was not from God ; and they had turned the young man 
out of the synagogue because he tried to defend Jesus as 
being from God, showing that had not God been with him 
he could not have done such miracles as opening the eyes of 
one born blind. In this tenth chapter, therefore, Jesus is 
showing that he is no hireling, no deceiver, but that he is 
the true shepherd, the real defender of his sheep, which 
are his followers, his disciples. He intends them to under- 
stand that he enters upon his grand mission to save men 
in a lawful way, just as a true shepherd enters into his 
sheepfold by the door. He does not sneak in, as a thief, 
some other way. None but thieves and impostors would 
do that way. Jesus enters by the door into his work, as a 
true man would always do. He comes to do the bidding of 
his Father and by the authority of the Father. The thief, 
the robber, the hireling, only climbs up some back way, 
and sneaks in for his own advantage, seeking the fleece, 
and not the good of the flock. But Christ enters his work 
not to seek his own good, but the good of a perishing world. 
The good shepherd literally enters by the door of his fold, 
and to him the porter opens, for he knows the shepherd's 
voice. So also the Son of God is known and recognized by 
all true servants of God and encouraged by them in his 
work, and is not treated by them as an impostor, as those 
Jews were then doing. Thus he gives them a severe rebuke 
for their treatment of him in rejecting him as an impostor. 
Then, again, the true shepherd knows his own sheep and 
calls them by name, and they hear his voice and follow him. 
So Christ knows his own servants, and they know him and 
hear his works and follow his directions and follow in his 
ways. Like the true shepherd that leads his sheep out to 
graze in green pastures and to streams of water, so the 
Lord's people have the promise of the life that now is and 
of that which is to come. 



594 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The whole passage is a beautiful figure to show the truth- 
fulness of the claims of Jesus to be the Son of God, and to 
show that all true servants of God will receive and hear 
him as such, and that those who reject him as an impostor 
and will not hear his voice are not his people ; and such were 
those Jews to whom he was then speaking. 

SICK, ANOINTING THE. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain James 5: 12-15, more particu- 
larly as to what kind of sickness is meant in verse 14 and what kind 
of oil to use. 

We do not know of any sickness needing bodily applica- 
tions except the sickness of the body. We suppose the 
remedy proposed is equally efficacious for all diseases of 
the body. We have not a particle of doubt as to its being 
the disease of the body. It was the body that was to be 
anointed, and the body was to be raised up. It was the 
body that was to be healed. If he had committed sins, they 
were forgiven. We cannot see a single point in the verses 
that we can make plainer. If a physician had written such 
direction, we do not think any one would have asked an 
explanation. Why mystify language or put doubtful con- 
struction upon it because the Spirit spoke it? Is not the 
Spirit as capable of using language that will convey its 
meaning clearly as man? Olive oil was universally used 
in sick applications, and is almost the only oil known to the 
Bible. D. L. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain, in the light of 
revelation, through the Gospel Advocate, the following passages: 
James 5: 14, 15. If the above should be practiced now, as you have 
intimated in the Advocate in time past, would it be a miracle similar 
to that performed by the Savior in raising Lazarus? Also, please 
explain Matt. 6: 6. The rewarding openly is particularly what I 
want explained. 

We do not think there would be any miracle in it at all, 
not a particle more than in working and praying for our 
daily bread. God ordains it as one of the means to effect 
the end proposed. We do not think healing would always 
result from the anointing, and healing would be modified 
by other influences. "Man shall not live by bread alone, 
but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of 
God." Every other condition needful for the restoration 
of health must be attended to as well as this. Then God 
designs that all should die at some time. These acts of obe- 
dience would not contravene the great purpose of God in this 
matter. All these promises must be interpreted in the light 
of God's well-known will in other things. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 595 

The promise to reward openly those who pray in secret 
we understand to mean that God will bless the individual in 
such a manner that the world can see the blessing, and this, 
too, both as to this world and the world to come. D. L. 

SIGNS TO FOLLOW. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Mark 16: 17, 18, which reads: 
"And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall 
they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues," etc. Now, 
there is one of our neghbors that says that meant all that believe, 
and the Bible is not fulfilling the prophecy. He does not profess to be 
a Christian. I fear he will lead some of the young people to believe 
the Bible contradicts itself. 

There never has been a time in the history of the church 
that all who believed and were baptized had these miracu- 
lous gifts. Those converted by the apostles themselves 
could not all do these miracles. The promise was not in- 
tended to embrace all, but enough should be endowed with 
these gifts to confirm the Scriptures as from God and to 
enable the world to believe. Such evidences were neces- 
sary in the first dawn of Christianity to attract attention 
to the doctrine; but our Lord's words do not mean they 
shall be in perpetuity, as a continual recurring of the evi- 
dence of the truth of Christianity. St. Gregory, on 1 Cor. 
14 : 22, says ; "These signs were necessary in the beginning 
of Christianity. In order that faith might take root and 
increase, it must be nourished by a miracle ; for so even we, 
when we plant shrubs, only water them until we see they 
are taking root; and when we see they have rooted them- 
selves, we cease to water them. This is what St. Paul 
means when he says: 'Tongues are for a sign, not to them 
that believe, but to the unbelieving.' (1 Cor. 14: 22.)" 
" 'In my name shall they cast out devils.' St. Mark, of all 
the evangelists, dwells most, perhaps, on this, as character- 
istic of our Lord's work and as the evidence of his supreme 
dominion over the spiritual world. They shall speak with 
new tongues.' This was the first intimation of the great 
miracle to be inaugurated on the day of Pentecost. The 
gift was continued but for a limited time. They shall take 
up serpents.' The instance of St. Paul at Melita (Acts 
28: 3-5) would be familiar to St. Mark's readers. 'And if 
they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them.' 
There are some traditionary notices of the fulfillment of 
this promise, as in the case of 'Justus Barsabas,' mentioned 
by Eusebius (H. E. 3: 19), and of St. John, mentioned by 
St. Augustine. It may be observed of this passage that 
no one could have interpolated it after the cessation of the 



596 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

signs to which it refers, which took place very early." (The 
Pulpit Commentary.) 

Brother Seivell: I have never asked a question through your query- 
department, but will now. I would be pleased to have you give an 
explanation of Mark 16 : 17, 18. 

The verses are: "And these signs shall accompany them 
that believe: in my name shall they cast out demons; they 
shall speak with new tongues ; they shall take up serpents, 
and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt 
them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall re- 
cover." All these miraculous powers belonged to the apos- 
tolic or miraculous age of the church. All these things 
were done by the apostles and by others who were endowed 
with miraculous gifts; but when that miraculous age 
passed out, these miraculous powers all ceased, and no man 
has worked those wonderful miracles since. Mormons 
claim that some of their men have this power now, but no 
man has ever seen one of them perform a miracle. Even 
Joe Smith, the founder of Mormonism, never performed a 
miracle. I tested two Mormon elders some years ago on 
that line. They had come to my house to teach me the 
ways of Mormonism more perfectly. While they were 
there, we got on the matter of working miracles ; and they 
said that their people could work miracles. Just as we 
were discussing this matter the hour came for the funeral 
of a young man about two or three blocks away, and I 
said : "Let us go up, and you bring that young man back to 
life again, and then you can take this city." But they 
would not budge a step, claiming, as their reason, that the 
people there did not believe they could perform a miracle. 
I said: "No, they do not; but Christ and the apostles per- 
formed miracles to produce faith. You do that, and then 
we will know that you can work miracles." But not a step 
would they go, and they left me and returned no more. The 
trouble is, they misapply this scripture and disregard the 
statement of Paul in 1 Cor. 13 that miraculous powers were 
to cease. The statement of Paul that miracles were to cease 
came to pass about the time the New Testament was com- 
pleted or very soon after, and miracles have not been known 
on earth since. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Mark 16: 15, or from verse 15 on 
down. I want to know who are the ones that these signs shall fol- 
low. Does it mean those that are baptized or the apostles? I find a 
great many people that do not understand this passage of scripture. 

In the American Standard Revised Version the passage 
reads: "And these signs shall accompany them that be- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 59? 

lieve." The Greek word rendered follow in the King James 
Version does not necessarily mean to follow indefinitely, 
but rather to accompany , to attend one where he goes, and 
only applies to the miraculous age, and must not be un- 
derstood so as to extend to or apply to any one beyond the 
age of miracles. Miraculous power was not intended to 
continue to the end of time, for the New Testament shows 
that miracles and miraculous powers were to cease. Paul 
says: "Love never faileth: but whether there be prophe- 
cies, they shall be done away; whether there be tongues, 
they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall be 
done away. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part ; 
but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in 
part shall be done away." (1 Cor. 13: 8-10.) This pas- 
sage plainly teaches that power to prophesy, to foretell fu- 
ture events, to teach things the teacher had never learned, 
to speak in languages he had never understood, and such 
like things, would all be done away; that they would be 
done away "when that which is perfect is come," and that 
means when a complete revelation of all things pertaining 
to Christianity should be revealed. This was done when 
the New Testament was completed, done in the early ages 
of the church ; and from that time until now there has not 
been a man on the earth that could perform miracles. 
There is not a Mormon on earth to-day that can perform a 
miracle, and there never has been. Mormonism came into 
existence many hundreds of years too late for it to be pos- 
sible for any of its followers ever to perform a miracle. 
If all the Mormons on earth were together in one place and 
should unite all their prayers and efforts, they could not, 
if their lives depended on it, perform one single miracle. 
They can go around and prate about contradictions in the 
Bible and about their ability to perform miracles, and mis- 
apply the above passage about believers being able to per- 
form miracles till doomsday, and yet they will never per- 
form a miracle. You may put them to the test in any way 
you choose, but they will never perform a miracle. They 
will not simply because they cannot, and those who claim 
the power to work miracles know they cannot. If it were 
in their power to perform miracles, they would soon fill 
the whole world with them, and they know it. All ought 
to study the Bible and fortify themselves against such 
empty claims and vain pretenses. 

SIN, NOT PARDONABLE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Heb. 10: 26, which 
reads thus: "For if we sin willfully after that we "have received the 
knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." 



598 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

Also explain 1 John 3: 9, which reads thus: "Whosoever is born of 
God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he can- 
not sin, because he is born of God." 

The apostle perhaps in this passage alludes to the sin of 
openly denying Christ and counting the blood of the cov- 
enant wherewith they were sanctified an unholy thing and 
doing despite unto the spirit of grace. But the Bible 
teaches abundantly that any sin willfully persisted in will 
become unpardonable. If the Jews had ceased to sin at 
nine times, they might have entered the promised land ; 
but they willfully sinned the tenth time, and no repentance 
could then take them into that goodly land. Whenever 
men sin in such a way as to set God at defiance, and go their 
own way when they know he commanded otherwise, as 
Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, no pardon can be ob- 
tained for them. The sin of Ananias and Sapphira was 
doubtless of this character. But the Bible teaches very 
plainly that when men sin through the weakness of the 
flesh, when it is not their intention to disobey and dishonor 
God, they may obtain pardon. John says : "If we confess 
our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and 
to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." The sins for which 
pardon is promised are not willful, presumptuous sins ; for 
such there is no pardon. All should strive to so live that 
they may never be guilty of willful sin. 

In the passage in John 3 the apostle is showing the char- 
acteristic difference between the children of God and the 
sinful people of the world who make no pretensions to honor 
God. The whole purpose and effort of the true child of God 
is to do his will, to do what is pleasing in his sight; while 
with the people of the world who reject the Lord, their 
whole purpose and effort is to go their own way and do as 
they please. The child of God loves him, and his whole de- 
sire is to do the Lord's will ; and while the seed, the word 
of God, remains in him, he cannot willingly sin. In other 
parts of the same letter he shows that none are free from 
sin. The weakness of the flesh is such, and the tempta- 
tions we meet in this life are so strong, that we are liable 
through mistake or sudden impulse to do wrong at any 
time; but sin is contrary to the purpose, the intention, of 
every true child of God, and he cannot willingly do what he 
knows to be wrong. Jesus said : "A good tree cannot bring 
forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good 
fruit." This is the same idea, only expressed in different 
form. E. G. S. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 599 

SIN, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PETER'S AND PAUL'S. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Setvell: Please explain 1 Tim. 1: 13. If 
Peter had sinned knowingly, would there have been any remission for 
him? If this is so, will there be any remission granted to persons 
who sin now knowing the law of Christ? Observe John 9: 39-41 with 
the above-mentioned passage. 

Paul says, after having persecuted the church of Christ 
and wasted it, that he obtained mercy because he did it ig- 
norantly in unbelief. From this it is certain had he known 
that Jesus was the Christ and then engaged in the fierce 
persecution of that church that he did, he could not have 
been forgiven. But this is not saying all that is committed 
with a knowledge that it is sin is unpardonable. If so, only 
the sins of ignorance are pardonable. We find in the law 
of Moses that sins wittingly performed might be turned 
from and forgiven. (Lev. 5: 6.) It is equally true in the 
New Testament. Things of this character are the same 
under all dispensations. Peter did sin knowingly. He 
denied with a bitter oath that he knew Jesus ; he lied when 
he did it, and knew he was lying. He swore profanely, 
knowing it was wrong when he did it ; yet he obtained par- 
don. 

If Paul had committed his sin knowingly, he could not 
have been pardoned. Peter did sin knowingly, and was for- 
given. Wherein is the difference? We think it was in the 
character of the sins. Paul was a fierce, bitter persecutor. 
His heart and his soul were in the work. It was a sin of 
deliberate purpose — the intent of the soul to destroy the 
religion of Jesus from the face of the earth. Such a sin 
knowingly performed was (is) unpardonable. Peter's sin 
was not one of this character; he did not wish to injure 
Christ — to destroy his religion or hurt his children. He 
only wished to save himself from harm. It was not a sin 
of purpose of the heart, of design; it was a sin of weak- 
ness—a sin of the flesh. The spirit was willing, the flesh 
weak, in this case, as on another occasion. Then a sin of 
fleshly weakness, although we may know it is sin when com- 
mitted, if repented of, may be forgiven. If not, all men are 
lost. No man liveth and sinneth not. A deliberate pur- 
pose of destroying Jesus Christ and his work, engaged in, 
knowing that he is the Christ, yet with the purpose of de- 
stroying that work, is unpardonable. Judas sinned a sin 
of this kind. He deliberately in his heart determined to 
destroy Jesus, knowing him to be a good man. He could 
not be forgiven. This distinction as to sins is kept up 
throughout the Bible, and explains many of the apparent 
contradictions on the subject of sins. 



600 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The passage in John 9 : 41 says : "If ye were blind, ye 
should have no sin : but now ye say, We see ; therefore your 
sin remaineth." This is saying, if they were blind, they 
would not be guilty of the sin they were then guilty of, 
claiming, as they did, that they could not see. 

We ought all to be troubled enough by these passages to 
make us strive to avoid all sin, and, when through weakness 
of the flesh we fall into sin, to make us quickly repent and 
turn from it. D. L. 

SIN, CAN A CHILD OF GOD? 

Brother Sewell: Please explain 1 John 3: 9. 

John was not discussing whether a child of God can sin 
or fall from grace or not. He was showing the difference 
between the righteous and the wicked. A faithful child of 
God is always striving to do God's will, and will not do what 
the word of God forbids. The man who goes contrary to 
the will of God is a child of the devil and not of God. Je- 
sus teaches the same thing when he says a good tree cannot 
bring forth evil fruit, nor can a corrupt tree bring forth 
good fruit. A man whose heart is set on doing what God re- 
quires will not do wickedly, is the idea. In verse 6 he says : 
"Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth 
hath not seen him, neither known him." Again, in verse 8 
he says : "He that committeth sin is of the devil ; for the 
devil sinneth from the beginning." In verse 10 he says: 
"In this the children of God are manifest, and the children 
of the devil." From these expressions it is plain that John 
in this chapter was showing the difference between the 
children of God and the children of the wicked one. The 
Lord's people will not knowingly do wrong, while the wicked 
will not try to do right. When a Christian knowingly does 
wickedly, he ceases to be God's child and goes over to Satan. 
Hence, in verses 18, 19, John says: "My little children, 
let us not love in word, neither in tongue ; but in deed and 
in truth. And hereby we know that we are of the truth, 
and shall assure our hearts before him." So it depends 
upon the child of God whether he holds with God or with 
the devil. 

SIN, WILLFUL. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain Heb. 10: 26: "For if we sin 
willfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, 
there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins." If one forsakes the as- 
sembling together on the Lord's day when he knows it is commanded 
that disciples come together to partake of the bread and wine as God 
has commanded, is it not a willful sin? If one gets drunk after he 
knows it is wrong, is that not willfully sinning? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 601 

When Abraham told Abimelech that Sarah was his sister 
to deceive him and save his own life, he knew he was mis- 
leading him. Again, Isaac denied his wife in the presence 
of Abimelech. (Gen. 26 : 7.) David knew he sinned when 
he defiled Bath-sheba. When Peter denied that he knew 
Jesus, he knew he lied. He knew he acted deceitfully when 
at Antioch he and Barnabas "dissembled" and refused to 
eat with the Gentile converts. (Gal. 2: 11-13.) All sins 
that we know to be sins are not willful sins. If they were, 
none of us would be saved. Every one knowingly commits 
sin. The willful sin of the Bible seems to me one in which 
the sinner seems to be wiser and smarter than God, assumes 
to change God's laws, and substitutes his own inventions 
for the appointments of God. King Saul did this. (1 Sam. 
15: 3.) God told Saul to go and smite all the Amalekites 
and destroy the men, women, and children, and all the 
stock of every kind and description. Saul changed it so as 
to destroy the vile and refuse and save the fit and desirable 
animals to sacrifice to the Lord. He thought he would 
honor God by changing the law of God rather than by obey- 
ing it. God refused to forgive this sin. This was to sin 
willfully. God said: "Because thou hast rejected the word 
of Jehovah, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 
(Verse 23.) To intentionally displace a command of God 
with an invention of man is the willful sin. This is espe- 
cially true since the commands of God are sealed by the 
blood of his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. The habitual 
neglect of the Lord's service or any worship of God educates 
and schools man to set aside God's laws and to set up his 
own ways in their stead. 

Brother Sewell: . (1) What is meant by sinning willfully, as given 
in Heb. 10: 26? (2) Please tell what Heb. 6: 6 means. (3) Again, 
please make Matt. 12 : 32 as plain as possible. 

(1) The passage evidently means an open, willful disre- 
gard of any part of the will of God. Any child of God that 
does that virtually rejects Christ as his Savior and deprives 
himself of all the blessings of salvation provided through 
him. There is a very great difference between willful sins 
and sins committed through the weakness of the flesh. In 
the one case we purposely refuse to do the will of God ; in 
the other we allow sudden impulses of the flesh to so over- 
come us that we yield to them, and do and say things that 
are wrong, not because we want to do the wrong, but sim- 
ply through human weakness. These latter sins may be 
repented of and forgiven, while willful sins cannot be for- 
given. 

(2) This passage teaches virtually the same thing, show- 



602 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ing most emphatically that those who willfully rebel or sin 
against the will of God virtually trample the Son of God 
underfoot, thus discounting the blood of the covenant 
wherewith they had been sanctified and depriving them- 
selves of all the blessings of salvation. 

(3) This verse says: "And whosoever speaketh a word 
against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him : but who- 
soever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be for- 
given him, neither in this world, neither in the world to 
come." This passage seems to indicate that personal 
wrongs can be forgiven upon genuine repentance, but that 
the sin against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven. 
Christ was manifested in a human body, a body of flesh and 
blood. The Jews that insulted and spoke against him did 
not look upon him as divine in any sense. Hence there was 
a chance for them to repent and be forgiven. Hence he 
prayed for the forgiveness of his persecutors while he was 
on the cross; not meaning, of course, that they could be 
forgiven without repentance, but that if they would repent 
they should be -forgiven as other penitents. We may not be 
able to understand all the reasons why it is so much more 
dangerous to speak against the Holy Spirit than against the 
Son of man; but Jesus knew, and it ought to be sufficient 
for us that he said so. It is also a matter of fact that it 
was through the miraculous inspiring power of the Holy 
Spirit that we have the Bible, the word of God, to-day. 
Even the apostles could not have preached the gospel to the 
world without the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and we 
would not have the New Testament, the gospel plan of sal- 
vation, to-day, if men inspired by the Holy Spirit had not 
written it down. From the time the last inspired man 
died the whole world has been dependent upon the New Tes- 
tament, which was given through the miraculous inspi- 
ration of the Holy Spirit, for all spiritual light. Hence, 
man knocks out his last chance of salvation when he blas- 
phemes, or speaks against, the Holy Spirit of God. 

The verse immediately preceding the one you name dis- 
tinctly says : "Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin 
and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blas- 
phemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 
men." Mark (3: 29, 30) says: "But he that shall blas- 
pheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but 
is in danger of eternal damnation: because they said, He 
hath an unclean spirit." The Pharisees had just accused 
him of casting out devils by the prince of the devils, and 
that was what brought forth the terrible condemnation 
mentioned in the passage you name. Hence, all should be 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 603 

careful not to express an intimation of wrong against the 
Holy Spirit, which shows us the way of salvation through 
the precious words of the New Testament. 

SIN, "THE MAN OF," AND OTHER QUESTIONS. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain who is the man of sin spoken 
of in 2 Thess. 2: 3. When was he revealed? (2) Does one member 
in the body of Christ possess more power or rights than another? 
(3) Can you tell us which is the oldest congregation of disciples, or 
Christians, in Tennessee? 

(1) The man of sin is understood to be a principle of 
error or lawlessness that arose in the church after the apos- 
tles had passed away. This lawless principle, as it is called 
in the Revised Version, is a principle among those claim- 
ing to be the Lord's people that are not willing to be con- 
trolled in all things by the word of God. When it suits 
them, they go by it and make claim to be sticklers for the 
Book ; but when it does not suit them, they introduce some- 
thing in its place, thus assuming to be wiser than God. 
That is what is meant by the statement in that chapter that 
he will sit in the temple of God, showing himself to be God ; 
that he would exalt himself above all that is called God ; 
that will with impunity set the word of God aside or change 
it to suit themselves. This power began to arise, little by 
little, in the early centuries of Christianity, but it was not 
until the early part of the seventh century that it was de- 
veloped in its most objectionable features. There was a 
bitter contest between the bishops of the cities of Rome and 
Constantinople as to which one of those churches should 
have the universal bishop. This struggle began in the sec- 
ond century on a small scale, when the churches first began 
to hold a sort of general councils, including certain sections 
of country at first, but which kept enlarging, and making 
the most prominent bishops of the churches, or of the 
churches of the largest cities, to preside over these conven- 
tions. They kept assuming more power in these conven- 
tions, and giving leading or prominent bishops more and 
more power and influence, till the struggle settled down 
between the two large cities named above — Rome, in the 
west, and Constantinople, in the east. But about the year 
606 the Roman emperor conferred the title of "universal 
bishop" upon the bishop of Rome. Then the churches of 
these cities separated. The church of Constantinople be- 
came leader of the Greek Church, while Rome became head 
of the Roman Catholic Church. These two churches have 
likely become the largest developments of that lawless prin- 
ciple that are known in the religious world. But many of 
the leading Protestant denominations are following after 



604 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

their mothers in the way of introducing innovations upon 
the word of God. The church of Rome, after immersion 
was virtually the one baptism for about thirteen hundred 
years, in one of their large conventions, or councils, de- 
cided that affusion, sprinkling and pouring, should be rec- 
ognized as all right. Affusion soon became the universal 
practice in the church of Rome, or the Roman Catholic 
Church. The Protestant churches that came out from 
Rome brought that innovation with them, and others like- 
wise have adopted it. Now quite a large portion of the 
whole religious world practice affusion instead of baptism, 
immersion. The Greek Church, however, still holds to im- 
mersion, though they have made many other bad breaks. 
The whole matter of creed making, instead of being gov- 
erned by the word of God, is quite a large development of 
the man of sin. The matter of building up societies of hu- 
man wisdom to do the work of the church is another devel- 
opment of this lawless principle. Anything that sets the 
word of God aside and exalts human wisdom or opinions to 
its place is understood to be of the man of sin. So it is a 
principle personified, rather than a person, that is called 
the man of sin. 

(2) There is no member that has any more power than 
another in the way of authority. Christ has all authority 
in heaven and on earth, and is "head over all things to the 
church." So there is not a particle of legislative authority 
belonging to any member of the church, or body of mem- 
bers, on earth. But as a matter of talent, or ability, and 
disposition to work, there are some members that have a 
much greater power of influence and executive ability than 
others; but there is no such a thing as official authority 
one above another, or rights that others do not have. The 
whole church of God is a kingdom of priests to him, with 
equal rights and privileges before the Lord. God has or- 
dained, appointed, however, that some members, on account 
of their age, Bible knowledge, experience, and ability to 
work, shall be overseers and servants in the church, to keep 
the churches under guidance of the word of God ; not to be 
officers over them, but examples to the flock. Some mem- 
bers that have more talent than others are under more ob- 
ligation to do certain work than others, because of ability, 
not because of any sort of official authority. 

(3) We are not able to state which is the oldest congre- 
gation in the State. The church at Roan's Creek, in West 
Tennessee, is said to be one of the oldest, and is the mother 
of a number of other younger and prominent congregations 
in that section of the State ; but we cannot tell which is the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 605 

oldest. In may be that some that may see this can give the 
information. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Thess. 2 : 3-13 through the Gos- 
pel Advocate. 

I suppose the second letter to the Thessalonians is meant. 
It is universally agreed that it means an apostasy in the 
church would take place before the day of the Lord, or the 
judgment of the world, should come. A power would arise 
in the church that would turn away from the law of God, 
that would exalt itself into the place of God. God's place 
is to make laws for his people. This power would take 
this authority on itself and change and modify the laws of 
God. So it is said to sit in the temple of God, to exalt and 
oppose God as the only Ruler and Lawgiver, and set itself 
forth as the rival of God. Paul tells them he had warned 
them of this when he was with them. Paul said that power 
was beginning to work in his day, but was restrained, for 
the time, by a power which I believe was himself; that 
when that power was taken out of the way — when Paul 
should die — then he would be revealed ; that power would 
come, according to the working of Satan, with all power 
and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceit of unright- 
eousness for those who refuse to receive the truth in the 
love of it. That power Jesus will destroy with the breath 
of his mouth and bring it to naught by the manifestation 
of his presence. God permits this delusion to come upon 
his people, that they might believe a lie and be damned, be- 
cause they did not believe his truth, but had pleasure in un- 
righteousness. The Holy Spirit tells this would come to 
pass. The question of difficulty is: When did it come to 
pass, and what are the manifestations of it? This power 
was to rise in the church, be of a religious character, set 
aside the law of God, and make laws to take the place of 
these laws of God. Protestants generally say the Roman 
Catholics constitute this growth that began in the days of 
Paul, but was hindered in development until his death ; 
then professed Christians began to meet to consider the 
general welfare, and, through delegates, to form organiza- 
tions that by degrees grew into the papacy. I think there 
is but little doubt this is true, but this is only one develop- 
ment of the principle. All dissatisfaction among Chris- 
tians with the laws and appointments as God gave them is 
a manifestation of this spirit of lawlessness or rebellion 
against God, and all organizations growing out of this spirit 
of dissatisfaction are manifestations of the man of sin. 
Roman Catholicism, I do not doubt, is the highest manifes- 



606 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tation of the spirit of the man of sin. But every time we 
manifest a dissatisfaction with the laws and appointments 
of God ,we show this spirit, and every law adopted or or- 
ganization made is an embodiment and manifestation of 
the spirit of lawlessness. 

Lyman Coleman, an eminent Presbyterian historian, 
voices the unanimous decision of church historians when 
he says : "They instituted no external form of union or con- 
federation between those of different towns or provinces; 
nor within the first century of the Christian era can any 
trace of such a confederacy, whether diocesan or conven- 
tional, be detected on the page of history/' ("Presbyte- 
rian Church," page 47.) "It is not until the second cen- 
tury that any traces of that sort of association from whence 
councils took their origin are to be perceived, when we 
found them accruing here and there. Some of them were 
tolerably clear and distinct; others, again, but slight and 
faint ; which seems plainly to prove that the practice arose 
subsequently to the times of the apostles." These coun- 
cils to consult for the good of all sprang up after the death 
of Paul and through successive stages culminated in the 
papacy in the sixth century ; but if the papacy is the grown 
man of sin, these converts in their successive stages repre- 
sent him in his childhood and youth. All similar organi- 
zations are of the same character, although external sur- 
roundings may hinder a growth into the same form and 
character. All substitutions of human order for God's ap- 
pointments are phases of the development of the mystery 
of iniquity that began to work in Paul's day. Jesus will 
destroy all these developments when he appears. 

SIN, THE, "UNTO DEATH." 

Brother Lipscovib : Please give your views on 1 John 5: 16, 17: 
"If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death, he shall 
ask, and God will give him life for them that sin not unto death. 
There is a sin unto death : not concerning this do I say that he should 
make request. All unrighteousness is sin : and there is a sin not unto 
death." "If any man see his brother sinning a sin not unto death." 
How are we to know? "He shall ask, and God will give him life for 
them that sin not unto death." Give who life? If to the one that 
asks, how can it help the brother who sins? Also, some of the native 
believers think verse 17 affords an excuse for some sins — that, for 
instance, it is not very bad to lie a little. 

We have never been able to reach a conclusion as to the 
meaning of this scripture. Most commentators refer it to 
the spiritually gifted. They connect it with James' direc- 
tion to the elders to anoint the sick with oil, pray over 
them, and they shall be healed, and refer both to the age of 
miracles. It has always seemed to us unnatural and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 607 

strained to take two or three verses out of scriptures di- 
rected to all Christians and for all ages and apply it to a 
specific class in one age. This gives great license for many 
evils. Macknight thinks that mortal diseases were brought 
upon people in that age for sin. The spiritually gifted 
could discern it. "To encourage those to repent who by 
their sins had brought on themselves mortal diseases — these 
were in the first age persons who, being endowed with the 
gift of healing diseases miraculously (1 Cor. 12: 9), were 
moved by the Holy Ghost to heal the sick, who had repented 
of the sins which had brought on them the diseases under 
which they were laboring. We may, therefore, believe that 
when John directed any one who saw his brother sinning 
a sin not unto death to ask God to give him life, he did not 
mean any ordinary Christian, but any spiritual man en- 
dowed with the gift of healing diseases; and that the 
brother for whom the spiritual man was to ask life was not 
any brother who had sinned, but the brother one who had 
been punished for his sin by some mortal disease, but who, 
having repented of his sin, it was not a sin unto death; 
and that the life asked for such a brother was not eternal 
life, but a miraculous recovery from the mortal disease 
under which he was laboring." That explanation is not 
satisfactory to me, as I see no reason for confining this to 
the miraculously endowed and applying the remainder to 
all ages and people. To give men license to thus set aside 
scripture as inapplicable to us that does not seem clear and 
possible, goes a long way toward setting aside the author- 
ity of scripture. 

But I have no clear and definite idea as to the meaning 
of the scripture, or how we can tell which sin is unto death 
and which not. Yet in that age there were clearer distinc- 
tions as to sins of this character than we have. Paul states 
Christ was of none effect to those who went back to Juda- 
ism. These were fallen from grace. (Gal. 5:4.) Again, 
for him that sinned willfully there was no more sacrifice 
for sin. These sins for which there was no forgiveness 
were better defined in the apostolic days than now. Our 
failure to keep a clear distinction comes somewhat from our 
altered surroundings and somewhat from loose habits of 
thought into which we have fallen. I think the life and 
death referred to are spiritual, and not bodily. When he 
gives life to the prayer, it is the spiritual life of those who 
sin. They are forgiven, and are said to be given him who 
prayed for them, as they were forgiven in answer to his 
prayer. Lying certainly is not classed among the minor 
sins in the Bible. 



608 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

SINGING, QUERIES ON. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: (1) In our Bible class we differ 
some in regard to our song service. Can erring brethren and sisters 
honor God by singing praises to his name, while at the same time they 
refuse to pray and commune at the Lord's table? One good brother 
says if any one wants to sing, he has no objections. (2) Is it not 
the duty of the elders to teach the people that they should not degrade 
the song service? (3) Is there not danger in our endeavoring to 
teach the church to sing different parts of music to time of causing 
them to neglect the example given by the apostle in 1 Cor. 14: 15? 
(4) Is it in keeping with the New Testament Scriptures for our breth- 
ren to teach the world to sing spiritual songs? (5) Have we not rea- 
son to believe that singing different parts of music in church leads 
some to the opinion that instruments are admissible? 

(1) Members of the church that are not faithful to the 
Lord and will not pray nor partake of the Lord's Supper 
cannot do anything that will be well pleasing to the Lord, 
except to turn from their evil and rebellious ways and go to 
serving the Lord in the earnestness of their souls. Such 
may enjoy the singing as a mere matter of music, but are 
not in a condition to sing with grace in their hearts to the 
Lord. As a matter of service and praise to God, their sing- 
ing is a failure. But I do not know that there is any au- 
thority to forbid them to sing. They sing on their own 
responsibility ; and if their singing the songs of Zion should 
help to bring them to repentance by the kindly admonitions 
of the songs which they sing with the congregation, then 
that much good is done by their singing. Christians are 
to teach and admonish one another in song, and sometimes 
the singing of a good song may cause even lifeless members 
to repent and turn to the Lord and do their first works. 
It is not well to establish rules where the Lord has estab- 
lished none. This is about as dangerous as to leave undone 
rules that he has established. 

(2) It is certainly the duty of the elders to teach the 
members all that the word of the Lord teaches on singing 
and everything else ; but it is not the duty of the elders to 
make and enforce any rules of their own in regard to the 
worship of the Lord. If all who are not faithful Christians 
are to be debarred from singing in the congregation, I think 
the elders would sometimes have a troublesome time of it 
to draw the lines so as to say just who may sing and who 
may not. But whenever members are notably bad and 
cannot be improved by teaching and admonition, they 
should be withdrawn from, and that would remove the trou- 
ble. So long as such members are allowed to remain in the 
church, I do not see how the elders could consistently stop 
them from singing. 

(3) There is, doubtless, some danger at this point that 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 609 

should be avoided if possible. Christians should be taught 
to sing correctly, and I do not see how one part in music 
can be objected to more than another, nor how any part can 
be objected to if we sing tunes at all. In the worship 
Christians should be taught to have their hearts on the 
sentiment and to sing with the spirit and the understand- 
ing also. If Christians sing only one part of a tune in the 
worship, and yet sing that one part simply to enjoy the mu- 
sic there is in it, and not with a purpose to praise and honor 
the Lord and to benefit their own hearts and lives by the 
sentiment of the song, then their singing is no benefit to 
themselves and no praise to the Lord. All extremes should 
be avoided in the matter of song by Christians, and they 
should sing, when engaged in the worship, with "melody 
in their hearts to the Lord." If Christians sing in the wor- 
ship merely for the sake of fine music, there is no worship 
and no good in it. When people are learning to sing, they 
then have to give attention to the music; or if they sing just 
for the sake of the music at times when not engaged in the 
worship or sing for pastime, there is nothing wrong that 
I can see for them to simply enjoy the music as a pleasure. 
But not so when they are in the assembly of the saints and 
engaged in the worship of the Lord. Then they should 
sing with the spirit and with the understanding also, and 
this can be done just as well in singing different parts of 
the tune as in singing only one part. 

(4) I do not see any impropriety in using spiritual songs 
when teaching the principles of music and when they are 
not assembled for worship. If the people of the world 
want to attend the classes when teaching members of the 
church to sing these songs and when only the matter of 
learning to sing is up as the purpose, I can see no impro- 
priety in it; but aliens cannot honor the Lord by singing 
spiritual songs anywhere, in the congregation or out of it. 
When aliens learn to sing these songs before they come in, 
then they are ready to sing in a way that will honor the 
Lord and benefit their own hearts when they do become 
Christians. 

(5) No, it is not the singing of the different parts of 
the tunes that cultivates the desire for the organ, but a 
worldly, fleshly mind and a mere desire for fine music and 
to have something to attract and entertain that brings in 
the organ. God commands his people to sing, and does not 
say whether they shall sing one part of the tune or two or 
three. No, it is not the doing of what God commands that 
brings in the organ; it is a perverted taste, a perversion 
of God's divine arrangements, that does it. If Christians 



610 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

sing in the worship alone for the music there is in it to 
their own ears, and not with the purpose to worship and 
honor the Lord, this is no better than putting in an organ 
for the same purpose. It is well that Christians should 
think on these things; and there should be good, sound 
teaching done along this line to prevent evil from creeping 
in where God has arranged for pure praise and honor to 
him and for our own edification. Select choirs to make 
the music for a worshiping assembly, with a part of the 
choir not members of the church at all, is not worshiping 
the Lord in song. The members of the church themselves 
and for themselves are the ones that are required to sing, 
and they cannot hand this duty over to a choir, whether 
with the organ or without the organ. No doubt there are 
many members of the church who have never studied the 
matter of worshiping God in song as they should. Too 
many have the idea that singing is something to please and 
gratify their own ears, and not a matter of praise, devo- 
tion, and service to God or a matter of teaching and ad- 
monishing one another in psalms, hymns, and spiritual 
songs. On the other hand, we need not think that because 
the singing is a matter of worship to God, therefore we 
need not pay any attention to the manner of singing. Bad 
singing may so grate on the ear as to destroy even the idea 
of devotion. The singing should be so carried on that there 
will be nothing in the manner of it to take the attention of 
the worshipers from their devotion to God. Hence, all 
Christians who can sing should learn to sing reasonably 
well, so that there shall be nothing in the manner of sing- 
ing that shall be unpleasant, harsh, or in any way inharmo- 
nious, so that the devotion of the heart may not be dis- 
turbed thereby. So there can be no objection to good sing- 
ing. But any good thing may be perverted. Good sing- 
ing may be perverted and run away with ; and this, doubt- 
less, is very extensively done. E. G. S. 

SINLESS, DO CHRISTIANS BECOME? 

Brother Lipscomb: Do the Scriptures teach that the children of 
God can become perfect while in the flesh — that is, reach a state of 
perfect love and a state in which they cease to sin? If so, please ex- 
plain the following scriptures: "At that day ye shall ask in my name: 
and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you." (John 16: 
26.) "Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that 
come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for 
them." (Heb. 7: 25.) "For Christ is not entered into the holy places 
made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven 
itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us." (Heb. 9: 24.) 
"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. 
And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus 
Christ the righteous." (1 John 2: 1.) "And having a high priest 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 611 

over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full as- 
surance of faith, having- our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, 
and our bodies washed with pure water." (Heb. 10: 21, 22.) If the 
Scriptures teach that we cannot reach such a state, please explain the 
following scriptures: "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father 
which is in heaven is perfect." (Matt. 5: 48.) "Howbeit we speak 
wisdom among them that are perfect." (1 Cor. 2: 6.) "Whom we 
preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; 
that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." (Col. 1: 
28.) "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our 
Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the 
everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his 
will, working in you that which is well pleasing in his sight, through 
Jesus Christ; to whom be glory forever and ever. Amen." (Heb. 
13: 20, 21.) "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his 
eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, 
make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you." (1 Pet. 5: 10.) 
"Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm 
yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in 
the flesh hath ceased from sin; that he no longer should live the rest 
of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God." 
(1 Pet. 4: 1, 2.) 

Christ was not made perfect until he had suffered. "But 
we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels 
for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor ; 
that he by the grace of God should taste death for every 
man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by 
whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to 
make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffer- 
ings." (Heb. 2: 9, 10.) "Though he were a Son, yet 
learned he obedience by the things which he suffered ; and 
being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salva- 
tion unto all them that obey him." (Heb. 5: 8, 9.) If it 
required the sufferings of the cross that Jesus, the Son of 
God, might learn obedience and be made perfect, that he 
might become "the author of eternal salvation unto all 
them that obey him," it seems to me hardly possible that 
man, frail and sinful, should be made perfect without equal 
suffering. I do not believe any human being equals Jesus 
in this. 1 Pet. 4 : 1 says : "Forasmuch then as Christ hath 
suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with 
the same mind : for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath 
ceased from sin." Jesus possessed the sinful emotions 
within him until they were purged out by suffering. I do 
not believe the emotion and temptation to sin can be purged 
out of any without suffering in the flesh unto death. I 
think this explains the reason of much of the suffering that 
good people undergo. It explains why the infant suffers. 

I might say more along this line, but a person that claims 
he is equal to or surpasses Jesus in the elements of his 
character that lead to freedom from sinful desires and im- 



612 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

pulses is hardly to be reasoned with. Yet there was a 
perfection that Jesus attained to and cherished during his 
life — that is, his heart was perfect toward God. He de- 
sired with a perfect heart to do the will of God. His will 
to do the will of his Father was sufficiently strong to hold 
in check the sinful emotions of the flesh, so that he com- 
mitted no sin. Man may approximate this perfection of 
the heart. The heart may be brought to sincerely desire 
to do the will of God. Does it attain the degree of power 
over the flesh that the man never sins in thought, word, or 
deed; by commission or omission? I do not believe it does. 
To do this would be for man in his human nature to equal 
Jesus with his divine nature. The thought and claim of 
sinless perfection in human beings savors of presumption, 
the worst of all sins before God. The claim of persons who 
really know very little of what constitutes true Christian- 
ity being sinless is well calculated to bring the religion of 
Jesus into contempt with thinking men. While this is true, 
it is right for every Christian to keep before him the ex- 
ample of the sinless life of Jesus and the perfection of the 
heart in its sincere and earnest desire to do the will of God. 
and strive to emulate them. These latter scriptures quoted 
are exhortations to strive after this, or prayers and hopes 
that they may finally be made perfect in Christ Jesus, that 
they may be accepted of God. Every passage quoted rec- 
ognizes man as in an imperfect state and needing to go on 
to perfection, that he may strive after and approach that 
state. Some of the quotations give clear intimation that 
perfection can be attained only when freed from the fleshly 
impulses. Any one that will read these passages over with 
this thought in mind will see this is true without my going 
over and applying it to each separately. A perfection of 
heart — that is, a sincere desire to do the will of God in all 
things — is to be cultivated and striven for. Its attainment 
is gradual, and I doubt if it can ever be said to be perfect 
while in the flesh. As the heart approximates this perfec- 
tion, it seeks to bring the flesh in subjection ; but the sinful 
emotions and desires are purged out only through the suf- 
fering and weakness that end in death. 

Brother Sewell: Does 1 John 3: 9 teach that a Christian is to 
reach a point in his Christian character here in this life that he can- 
not sin? The verse is this: " Whosoever is born of God doth not 
commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because 
he is born of God." 

These "sanctification" folks, who teach that they do not 
and cannot sin, make John contradict himself. In the first 
chapter he says : "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 613 

ourselves, and the truth is not in us." In this he was talk- 
ing to Christians, and included himself, which shows that 
none can live in the flesh and in this sinful world and not 
sin. Hence those that so interpret verse 9, chapter 3, as 
to make him say that if a man be truly a child of God he 
cannot sin in any sense make the word of God a contradic- 
tion. It is evident, therefore, that they misinterpret verse 
9. The apostle in this passage was showing the difference 
between wicked people, who do not pretend to serve the 
Lord at all, and the children of God, who are trying to serve 
him all the time. In the next verse he says: "In this the 
children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil : 
whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither 
he that loveth not his brother." In the case of wicked 
people they do not try to serve the Lord at all, but serve the 
devil all the time ; but the children of God are all the time 
striving to do the Lord's will and to avoid sin. A true child 
of God, therefore, cannot and will not willfully or purposely 
sin, and this is the point John was making. A true child 
of God is all the time trying not to sin, while wicked peo- 
ple — the children of the wicked one — have no such thought 
or purpose, but are heedlessly sinning all the time. But 
while the righteous are striving all the time to do right — 
to do the Lord's will — while the spirit is willing, the flesh 
is weak, and temptations are sometimes sudden and strong ; 
and through these weaknesses the best of people, even as 
John himself, are liable to sin. This weakness, this lia- 
bility to sin, is what he was talking about in the latter part 
of the first chapter, as quoted above, in which the liability 
of all to sin is taught. He also teaches, in the same con- 
nection, that sins through weakness, that were not sins of 
purpose, can be forgiven. So there is perfect harmony in 
the two passages. Hence those who teach that they reach 
such a state of sanctification that they cannot sin misapply 
the passage in chapter 3, and thus hold up the Bible in these 
matters as a book of contradictions. On account of the 
weakness of the flesh and the multitude and strength of 
temptations it keeps Christians watching and praying as 
long as they live to keep from sinning, and even then they 
will sometimes make a miss. Such is the teaching of John. 

E. G. S. 

SINNERS, ALIEN, AND RESTITUTION, ETC. 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Does an alien sinner have to make resti- 
tution before he can become a Christian — that is, if he has stolen, if 
he has slandered his neighbor, if he has defrauded any one, if he has 
taken anything that does not belong to him, must he redress the in- 
jured parties? If so, why do not our preachers say something about 
it and let the people know it? (2) One of our big preachers said the 



614 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

other day that the new covenant is our mother, and not the king- 
dom; that we are begotten in the covenant, born out of it into the 
kingdom — something new to me and the brethren. Are not the new 
covenant and the kingdom the same thing? 

(1) All misrepresentation or deception is lying. Every- 
thing gained through misrepresentation and deception is 
stolen. So long as a man intentionally permits a misrep- 
resentation he has made to remain uncorrected, he is guilty 
of lying; so long as he retains what he has dishonestly 
gained, he is a thief. If I slander a man, so long as I fail 
to correct that slander, I am a slanderer; if I defraud a 
man by misrepresentation, so long as I fail to restore, I am 
both a liar and a thief. There is no repentance of a sin 
without undoing it. If a man has wronged another and is 
not able to correct the wrong, it is his duty to confess the 
wrong toward the man and to the extent of his ability cor- 
rect the wrong. If the preachers do not dwell on this, I 
suppose it is because the sins are so common they are dis- 
couraged from undertaking to correct it. 

(2) I am not up on the questions the big preacher dis- 
cusses. I think much of the reasoning darkens counsel 
rather than throws light on it. The covenant embraces the 
laws which must rule in the kingdom, I would say. 

SINNERS, ALIEN, AND PRAYER. 

Brother Lipscomb: Will God hear the prayers of an alien sinner? 

God has heard alien sinners who were anxious to know 
and do the will of God. Cornelius is a notable example of 
this. On the other hand, he will not hear sinners in the 
church who refuse to hear. "He that turneth away his ear 
from hearing the law, even his prayer shall be abomina- 
tion." (Prov. 28: 9.) And similar expressions (Prov. 15: 
8; 21: 27; Ps. 50: 9) are all spoken to the professed serv- 
ants of God. The truth is this: When a man is refusing 
to obey God, whether in the church or out of it, God will 
not hear him ; when he is seeking to know and do the will 
of God, his prayers are acceptable to God. When a man 
prays God to forgive his sins while refusing to do what 
God tells him to do that he may receive the forgiveness of 
sins, God will not hear that prayer. That is all that is 
needed to be taught people. Go forward and do what God 
commands, "calling on the name of the Lord." 

SLAVES AND MASTERS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us an expla- 
nation of the following scriptures, as there is a difference of opinion 
in this neighborhood in reference to who are the servants and mas- 
ters referred to? Some of us think the servants are the negroes who 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 615 

have been liberated in the United States; others think differently. 
The passages are: "Let as many servants as are under the yoke 
count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God 
and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (1 Tim. 6:1.) "Servants, be 
subject to your masters, with all fear; not only to the good and gen- 
tle, but also to the froward." (1 Pet. 2: 18.) "Servants, be obe- 
dient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear 
and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ." (Eph. 
6:5.) "Exhort servants to be obedient unto their own masters, and 
to please them well in all things; not answering again." (Tit. 2:9.) 

The apostles in the above passages, we think, had no di- 
rect reference to the United States in any way. Yet they 
laid down principles that apply as well in the United States 
as any other country under like circumstances. These pas- 
sages had direct reference to the churches to which the let- 
ters were addressed, but will apply equally well to any other 
churches where like relationships exist. According to the 
history of that country in which these churches and indi- 
viduals were to which these epistles were written, slavery 
of a very rigid form was in force, in which the master had 
full possession and control of the servants. The Christian 
religion never proposed to interfere with the political in- 
stitutions of any country, but always inculcated and re- 
quired the quiet submission of the members of the church 
to the laws of the country where they lived, except as mod- 
ified by their higher obligations to God in case there should 
be a conflict. Hence, where slavery was the law of the land, 
instead of interfering with the institution, Christianity di- 
rected both the master and the servant how to act toward 
each other in that relationship. But when one man en- 
gages himself to serve or work for another in any capac- 
ity, even where both parties are equally free, so far as po- 
litical relations are concerned, the one employed should 
serve his employer faithfully and honestly, according to 
agreement ; while at the same time the employer must treat 
the one employed with equity and justice, according to con- 
tract. In this sense the principles of the above passages 
apply to the colored people of our country at the present 
time. When they engage themselves to their former own- 
ers or others, they are required to be faithful to their en- 
gagements as rigidly as if they belonged to them; and at 
the same time the white brethren who employ them are un- 
der the strongest obligation to fulfill their engagements to 
the colored man. But the relationship politically that ex- 
isted then between the master and the servant was very 
different from that which now exists in our country. Then 
it was actually master and servant in the sense of posses- 
sion or property ; now it is so only by voluntary agreement 
for a specified time or purpose. 



616 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

So, then, we conclude that the passages under consider- 
ation have no direct reference to the colored people of our 
country, any more than to any other citizens who are mem- 
bers of the church. We understand that in the above pas- 
sages both masters and servants were members of the 
church, and these instructions are intended for all Chris- 
tians wherever the same relations exist. Very much the 
same principles hold good in the case of hired servants. 
Both parties are bound by the laws of God to treat each 
other justly. If those apostles had been writing to churches 
in our country as it now exists, where the churches were 
composed of white and colored members, they would not 
have addressed them as master and servant ; but they would 
have taught them to treat each other honestly and faith- 
fully in all their dealings with each other, which principle 
is abundantly taught throughout the New Testament. If 
the institution of slavery still existed, then the address 
would be as the passages above. E. G. S. 

SOCIABLES, PARTIES, ETC. 

Please give what you understand the Bible to teach in regard to 
Christians attending what they term sociables, wherein they engage 
in all kinds of songs and plays. They claim that because they do not 
dance they commit no wrong. 

The Christian religion does not propose to repress all 
recreation or social pleasures among the young; and when 
we are children or young, we will have childish ways. The 
danger is with the young that they become excited and car- 
ried away by their excesses and engage in that which is 
fleshly, sensual, and demoralizing. The young need to be 
guarded and restrained, lest they go to excess and lest they 
engage in that which is hurtful. 

The dance is sinful, because its chief attraction is in the 
excitement of the lusts and tempts to wrong. The young 
will and should have pleasant associations with each other 
in ways that lead to no excess. Parents and older persons 
ought to study to provide the young with these, and to be 
present in their social gatherings to see that they do not 
thoughtlessly run into excess. 

I cannot speak of what are called sociables or social gath- 
erings of the young. They may be evil or they may not be. 
Good society demands the presence of older and prudent 
persons in these gatherings to restrain from excess and to 
lead in ways that are proper. Much more Christianity de- 
mands of parents in these matters. Do not try to deny the 
young social enjoyments and recreations, but try to guard 
against evil and direct them in the ways that are not sinful. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 617 

SOCIAL MEETINGS. 

Brother Lipscomb: Kindly tell through the Gospel Advocate 
whether or not it is wrong for a number of people to meet at their 
homes one evening in each week to study moral philosophy, ethics, 
or good morals. Suppose that a number of people take Professor 
Gau's textbook, "Good Morals and Gentle Manners," and study a 
chapter or a number of chapters at an appointed place once a week, 
select a leader, and recite as we would recite a lesson in school ; would 
that be right or wrong? We have no officers, no by-laws, no admis- 
sion fee, no pledge. There are some very good people who class such 
work or study with Christian Endeavor Societies, aid societies, 
church fairs, festivals, etc.; hence I want information. 

I do not think it wrong for Christians to meet with the 
persons of the world to help them in any work that benefits 
men and women and violates no command of God. There 
is no harm in Christians meeting with those not Christians, 
to build houses, roll logs, make a quilt, learn to read or 
write, sew, study farming, or do anything that would im- 
prove any one or all. "If any of them that believe not bid 
you to a feast, and ye be disposed to go ; whatsoever is set 
before you, eat, asking no questions for conscience' sake. 
But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice 
unto idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for con- 
science' sake." (1 Cor. 10: 27, 28.) Here permission is 
given to Christians to go to feasts of unbelievers at which 
it was probable things offered to idols would be placed be- 
fore them to eat. Certainly if they could attend feasts 
with heathens for social and fleshly enjoyments, they could 
meet with them for mutual improvement of mind or body. 
It is the duty of Christians to cultivate kindly relations 
with sinners — to go among them, associate with them in 
such way as to be able to help them, and thus to be able to 
teach them the truth. "As we have therefore opportunity, 
let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are 
of the household of faith." Every opportunity we have of 
helping them to improve their conditions — spiritually, men- 
tally, or bodily — it is our duty to use to aid them. The 
idea that we are to stand aloof from men and women be- 
cause they are not Christians — to refuse to mingle and as- 
sociate with them and take an interest in promoting their 
good and happiness in every way — is a perversion of the 
religion of Jesus Christ. He so associated with them and 
took an interest in all their affairs that he was called the 
"friend of sinners." The evil to be guarded against is not 
that we will be brought into contact with the world, but we 
are not to enter into such relations with or obligations to un- 
believers that we are liable to be controlled by their actions. 
A simple meeting together with them or association purely 
voluntary, by which one is not controlled by their actions, 



618 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

is not of this class. Then religious organizations formed 
by men to do work God committed to the church and to 
Christians in their individual capacity — this last is to indi- 
viduals as members of his church — are adding to the ap- 
pointments of God ; they supersede his appointments or di- 
vide their work with them and weaken and dishonor them ; 
they are sinful, regardless of the work they do. But in 
meetings for social intercourse or mutual helpfulness in any 
mental, moral, religious, or bodily improvement there can 
be no wrong. 

SOCIETIES, REPLY TO J. W. HIGBEE ON. 

Brother Lipscomb : I have been reading the Gospel Advocate since 
January 1. I have seen nothing harsh or unchristianlike in it until 
lately, and I know you will pardon me if I am mistaken. In the is- 
sue of that paper, bearing date August 15, on page 504, we have a 
letter from Brother F. M. Green in regard to the work of two mis- 
sionary societies, and followed by comments from your pen. Could 
a Christian in the name of Christ do what you charge Brother Green 
with doing in the second and third paragraphs of your reply? Could 
a society doing so dishonestly be a "Christian missionary society?" 
The first five periods of the fourth paragraph convey the idea that all 
of those who through the preaching of this society give their hearts 
and are "buried with him by baptism unto death" "will be burned out 
in hell by the unquenchable wrath of God." Again, that these mis- 
sionary preachers, though with trusting and loving hearts they are 
^reaching "all the words of this life" in the exact "form of sound 
/ords" to the "strangers to the covenant of promise," yet their gos- 
iel is impure, and consequently another, which will bring down the 
t'rath of God upon the preacher and society, and "will be burned out 
n hell by the unquenchable wrath of God." The Review of August 
U0 does not agree with my brother. "J. F. R." speaks better than 
that of the Foreign Society. Do you agree with that paper about 
that society? J. W. Higbee. 

We certainly thank Brother Higbee for calling attention 
to anything that is wrong in our writing or teaching. This 
we tried to do with the teachings of the missionary society, 
and we would be done by just as we do to others in this re- 
spect. We may use terms a little harsh-sounding some- 
times. We sometimes do this to make persons think. Ev- 
erything displeasing to Almighty God in this world will be 
burned up in hell. I believe this. Does Brother Higbee? 
"Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, 
shall be rooted up," says Jesus. "Upon this rock I will 
build my church ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail 
against it." The gates of hell, then, shall prevail against 
every other church or organization except this church of 
Jesus Christ. "Now if any man build upon this foundation 
gold, silver, precious stones, Wood, hay, stubble; every 
man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall de- 
clare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 619 

shall try every man's work of what sort it is." Now, all 
work done under the direction of God is "gold, silver, pre- 
cious stones." All work done not under the direction of 
God, all done through teaching for doctrines the command- 
ments of men, is "wood, hay, stubble," and will be burned 
up "by the unquenchable wrath of God." You believe this, 
do you not, Brother Higbee? Then if anything that I have 
said is unchristian, it will be burned up "by the unquench- 
able wrath of God." When Brother Higbee says that my 
language is "unchristianlike," he means it will be burned 
up "by the unquenchable wrath of God." I do not think it 
would have been harsh or unchristian for him to have said 
so. I thought, I still think, the building these associations 
unauthorized by the God of heaven unchristian. I think 
everything unchristian, work and thought, will be burned 
up "by the unquenchable wrath of God." I said so. It 
may be harsh, unchristianlike; but I fail to see it so. I 
have no doubt I have done work that will be burned up in 
hell. I wish for the future to do as little of that kind of 
work as possible. If one of my brethren, or any one else, 
sees me doing work that he thinks will be destroyed in 
hell, I will thank him for calling my attention to it. I will 
review it carefully. 

I said not one word about the fate of any one. I have no 
doubt that many persons have been converted to Christ by 
agencies and even individuals that were doomed to hell; 
yet the converts were saved. Paul seemed to think so. 
(See 1 Cor. 9 : 27.) The converse is also true. 

We say not one word about Brother Green's work. We 
saw him ; we liked him. He made a report when he went 
home of things of which he knew but little. We spoke of 
the society, not of the men ; nor did we speak of motives. 
We do not believe it is a Christian missionary society. We 
do not believe any organization or practice is Christian un- 
less ordained or authorized by Christ and his apostles. 
This society is not ordained of God, God nor Jesus Christ 
ever ordained or authorized a society or a church from 
which his humble, faithful children are excluded on account 
of their poverty or in which membership and honors and 
influence are based upon money considerations. A society 
based on and acting upon such principles is subversive of 
the whole spirit of the religion of Jesus Christ, and is sail- 
ing under false colors when it calls itself Christian. Its 
tendency is to build up a moneyed aristocracy in the church 
of God. There is not a precept or an example in all the 
book of God that indicates God could favor an association 
based upon such principles. The preaching the gospel to 



620 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the world is a work in which every Christian has a birth- 
right to bear a part, to hold fellowship. To deprive one 
of fellowship in this because he or she is not able to pay a 
specified sum of money is just as great a violation of God's 
order and of Christian fellowship and brotherhood as to 
say a poor brother or sister cannot partake of the Lord's 
Supper unless he or she will pay a specified amount of 
money. 0, no, Brother Higbee, no such society as that 
ever had its origin with God or Christ; and "every plant, 
which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted 
up." It is not Christian. 

Our statements concerning Brethren Brayboy and Wood 
are true. They were at work, doing a good work. A very 
few dollars a year are sent them. Their work is reported 
as society work. It injures them by letting the impression 
get out that they are supported by the society, so that oth- 
ers in their vicinity who would help them feel that they are 
released from the obligation to aid them. We can give 
other cases in which the influence of support promised 
stopped active white preachers from work. 

If the preachers preach all the words of this life as given 
in the Bible, they do not preach missionary societies other 
than the churches of God. They teach the necessity of 
taking God's ordinances and appointments just as the apos- 
tles delivered them, adding nothing to, taking nothing from. 
It is just as great an assumption of authority to organize a 
society and substitute it for the church of God to spread 
the truth as it is to form a Methodist society; just as great 
to change the work of preaching the gospel from the church 
to which God committed it to a society formed by man on a 
money basis as it is to change immersion into sprinkling. 
A man who claims the right to change any appointment of 
God or to substitute for it an organization of man does not 
preach "all the words of this life" and cannot preach a 
pure gospel. Disciples of Christ have no more right to 
change God's appointments than Methodists or Baptists or 
Romanists. They have no more right to change or modify 
his arrangements for spreading the gospel than they have 
to change the ordinances for admission into his church. 
The only Christian course is : Take all of his appointments 
just as he gave them; add nothing to, take nothing from. 
He who adds to or takes from forfeits to that extent his 
scriptural claim to be a Christian. 

It never costs us a thought as to whether we agree with 
the Review or not. We strive to agree with the Bible. If 
the Review agrees with it, we will agree with the Review. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 621 

If it fails to agree with the Bible in any matter, we hope in 
that we disagree with it. We try to, at least. 

We have written plainly, we do not think unchristianly. 
Christian writing is very plain as given in the Bible. We 
know we have written in greatest kindness of feeling to- 
ward all men. D. L. 

SOLOMON, WAS HE A COLORED MAN? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Please explain the passage of 
scripture found in the Song of Solomon 1 : 5,6. What is meant by 
the word black? Some of our brethren think that Solomon was a 
black, or colored, man from this passage. I do not. 

Solomon was a Jew; was as dark as the general run of 
Jews. He may have been a dark-skinned Jew. We pre- 
sume this is all he meant. It is all we know about it. 

"SONS" OF GOD AND "DAUGHTERS" OF MEN. 

Please explain Gen. 6: 2. Were the sons of God and daughters of 
men both descendants of Adam and Eve, or were they two different 
sets of persons created at different times? 

I have never found any account of creation of but one 
race of men. I am sure all that I have ever seen sprung 
from the one race. They are all brothers in a common hu- 
manity. But from the beginning in Adam's race some fam- 
ilies were more faithful to God than others. The sons of 
the more faithful took to races of the less faithful families, 
and all went the downward path together, just as they do 
now. 

SOUL, WHAT IS THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please explain through 
the Gospel Advocate what the soul of man is? Is it not that which 
God breathed into him when he became a living soul? 

This is a question that no man can fully answer. It is, 
doubtless, one of the untaught questions that Paul says to 
avoid. We may learn something of what the word soul 
represents as found in the Bible, but no man can tell what 
the soul really is. In some places in the Bible the word 
soul refers to the whole man as an individual being, as 
when God breathed into Adam the breath of life and he be- 
came a living soul — that is, a living being. And, again, 
when in Ezekiel God says, "The soul that sinneth, it shall 
die," he means the man — the man that sins — shall die. 
But when Christ says, "What shall it profit a man, if he 
shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" he 
means something more by the word soul. He means that 
part of man which lives on after the body dies and which 



622 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

will exist through all eternity. But the question is still 
unanswered : What is the soul — that part of man that never 
dies ? No man can answer. It is enough for man to know 
that he has a soul that will continue to exist when the body 
dies, either in happiness or misery, and that this happiness 
or misery depends upon whether we obey or disobey the 
word of God in this life. 

SOUL AND SPIRIT, DISTINCTION BETWEEN. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I desire to ask you a question 
upon the following verse: "For the word of God is quick, and power- 
ful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the di- 
viding asunder of soul and spirit." (Heb. 4: 12.) This seems to 
me to imply a difference between the soul and spirit. If so, what is 
the distinction? 

We cannot undertake to tell with any degree of certainty 
what is meant in this passage by the word soul. It is gen- 
erally understood that in such passages as this the word 
soul means the principle of animal life which is possessed 
in common with all animals, and that the word spirit means 
that part of man which does not die when the body dies. 
This is as good an exposition as we know on the subject; 
and, whether right or wrong, it will affect no man's salva- 
tion either to receive or reject the interpretation. If we 
obey all the practical precepts of the word of God, we need 
not be uneasy about the distinction of soul and spirit. The 
word of God is sufficiently powerful to separate soul and 
spirit, and that much we are called upon to believe, and 
beyond that we need not be uneasy about the meaning. It 
is a blessing to us that the word of God plainly reveals all 
we need to know and does not burden us by telling us what 
would not do us any good if we did know it. E. G. S. 

SOUL, WHERE IT GOES AT DEATH. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Where does the soul stay while 
the body rests in the tomb? Some seem to think that the soul goes 
to heaven, and others think not. 

We find a few passages in the word of God bearing upon 
this subject. Christ says of Lazarus when he died that he 
was carried by angels to Abraham's bosom. This means 
a place of rest and enjoyment, but we need not say it means 
heaven proper. Paul said he had a desire to depart and be 
with the Lord, indicating that in some very desirable sense 
he would be present with the Lord as soon as the spirit 
should leave the body. These passages are as plain on the 
subject as any we know, and clearly indicate that when the 
righteous die their spirits at once go to Abraham's bosom, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 623 

are at once with the Lord in some important sense that 
they are not in this life, while in the body. We need not 
say that this is heaven, nor need we say it is not heaven. 
The passages just as they stand are sufficient to give us all 
the consolation we need on that subject. E. G. S. 

SPECULATION, AVOID. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I am solicitous to know your view 
on Rev. 11, more particularly verse 3, concerning the two witnesses 
spoken of — who they are or who they were. 

We do not know who the two witnesses are, and, there- 
fore, cannot undertake to tell. Whenever the time comes 
in the wisdom of God for men to understand who they are, 
our judgment is, the matter will be plain. We are so busy 
about plain, practical matters that are expressed in plain, 
unfigurative language, involving present duties and respon- 
sibility, that we have not had time to study the figurative 
language of Revelation. Some men have tried to tell, but 
they differ so widely that we are inclined to think that none 
of them know. We, therefore, will not venture an opinion 
even on the subject. E, G. S. 

SPECULATIONS, WHAT ARE THEY WORTH? 

The religious world is full of all sorts of speculations, 
after which many are running instead of adhering to the 
plain word of the Lord. These speculations come up in 
almost every possible and imaginable shape and form. 
When men once take hold of a speculation and become 
wedded to it, they think a great deal more of that specu- 
lation than they do of the word of God ; and whenever it 
comes to the test that their speculations or the word of 
God must go by the board, the rule is that the word of 
God is laid aside, while the speculations are clung to like 
dear life. Take, for example, the speculation that the 
Spirit of God in the conversion of the sinner works directly 
upon their hearts to quicken the dead faculties of their 
souls, as some express it. Suppose this to be true just as 
claimed, how far can this affect the responsibility of man? 
Just none at all, because this, if done, is wholly the work of 
God, and not of man. But, on the other hand, obedience to 
the word is the work of man, and without which he is for- 
ever doomed. He that hears the word and does it not builds 
upon the sand ; and his house will certainly fall, no matter 
what else may be done. 

The great trouble is that those who believe and trust in 
the speculation turn away from the word and will not in 
any wise obey the word. When a man is once made to be- 



624 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lieve that the Spirit of God will enter directly into his heart 
to convert him, it is impossible to move him to obey the 
word and trust its promises. These people cannot be in- 
duced to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ 
for the remission of sins. They wait and still wait for the 
Spirit to come and do the work. Yet the one is the plain 
word of the Lord, while the other is a mere human specula- 
tion, without one word of authority for it in the word of 
God. To such as believe this speculation of the direct work 
of the Spirit upon the heart in conversion you might read 
the words of the Spirit, "Repent, and be baptized/' till 
doomsday, and they would refuse it as "Campbellism" or 
something of that sort, while they would cling like life itself 
to any ignoramus that will tell them that the Spirit will 
certainly work directly upon their hearts to convict and 
convert them. Yet every one that will think for a moment 
must know that the word of God must be obeyed or we 
must be eternally condemned. All that will think at all 
ought to know that when they refuse the word they will 
be condemned. But as to the direct work of the Spirit, if 
that is done at all, the Lord has that to do, and that obe- 
dience to the word will not hinder it. Therefore the man 
who obeys the word is safe, while the man that rejects the 
word and refuses to obey it will be irrecoverably lost, no 
matter what else may be done. So the man that simply 
depends upon the speculation is certain to fail, while the 
man that obeys the word is infallibly safe, no matter what 
else may be true. The speculation, therefore, is worth 
nothing and will save no one, while the word of the Lord 
is worth everything and will save to the uttermost all that 
obey it. What a pity that so many people will be deluded 
out of their souls by a mere speculation, for which there is 
not one word of authority in all the Bible ! 

Then, again, some claim that it is impossible for those 
once converted to God ever to turn back and be lost. This 
is pure speculation. But suppose even this were true, it is 
also true that he that continues to obey the word and holds 
out faithfully in his service to God to the end of life is per- 
fectly certain to be saved. On the other hand, if it turns 
out that only those who keep the word faithfully to the end 
can be saved, then those who trust to the speculation and 
do not keep the word will be forever lost. This specula- 
tion, therefore, is worth nothing to any man. Its only ten- 
dency is to delude and cheat men out of their souls. • Why 
will men cling to these delusions, these speculations of men, 
and risk their eternal all upon them, when the plain word 
of God is in the reach of all and all may obey and live? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 625 

Truly the actions of some in this world are passing 
strange. 

Others there are that are making a great ado about soul 
sleeping, or the utter unconsciousness of the souls of men 
from death to the resurrection. This, again, is speculation. 
The word of God does not say so. It is only what men 
think. But what is it worth? Suppose it to be true as 
claimed, will this help to save any one? Will it cause any 
man to love God more or to be in any sense a better or ho- 
lier man ? By no means. Just the reverse is true. Those 
that become infatuated with this delusion lose their inter- 
est in the plain, practical word of God, and spend their time 
in advocating it, and thus miss the only chance there is for 
the salvation of their souls, which is to faithfully obey the 
word of God. These soul sleepers, many of them, even 
reject the Lord's Supper and deny the existence at the pres- 
ent time of the kingdom of God on this earth. And, be- 
sides, it is so much more cheering to believe what the Sav- 
ior said about Abraham and Lazarus, in the joyful state in 
which they are mentioned, than to believe in soul sleeping. 
Granting it to be true, and still it cannot possibly do any 
one any good to believe it ; while, on the other hand, it will 
save all men who believe and obey the plain, practical word 
of God. Those who believe in and obey the word of God 
have every possible advantage over those who believe mere 
speculations of men. They are much purer and happier in 
this life and are certain of eternal life beyond the grave. 

Universalism is another one of these speculations, and a 
very delusive one, at that. There is no one delusion likely 
that is taking so many people away from the word of God, 
the. only hope of a ruined world, as this. It encourages 
men to go on in any sort of sinful life, to practice any in- 
dulgence of the flesh that they may desire, without any fear 
of eternal condemnation. It virtually takes all fear of God 
from the eyes of the people and turns them loose to do as 
they please. But without any argument to the contrary at 
present, suppose it to be true, and what can there be in it 
to benefit human society in believing it ? Will it make men 
any better, more honest, more truthful, or holy? Every 
one that thinks is bound to know that the reverse will be 
true. Take away entirely the fear of future punishment 
from men, and the result to the masses would be fearful. 
On the other hand, suppose that men never thought or 
heard of Universalism, but that they take the word of God 
and obey it; that they obey the gospel and become Chris- 
tians, and then live the Christian life to its close. Every- 
body knows that this will make men better, purer, and ho- 



626 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lier ; it will make them honest, truthful, and charitable ; it 
will make husbands true and faithful to their wives; it 
will make wives virtuous and true; it will make parents 
true and faithful to their children, and children obedient 
and true to their parents ; it will make all men in all rela- 
tionships of life better, will make society purer and more 
enjoyable every way, to believe and obey the word of God 
as it is. Then suppose Universalism at the end should 
turn out to be true, will the man who faithfully obeyed the 
word of God through life lose anything by not having un- 
derstood and believed it? "Nothing/' says every one — 
"nothing at all ; he is just as well off as he possibly could 
have been if he had believed it and confided in it all the days 
of his life." But suppose Universalism turns out to be 
false, and that nothing but humble and faithful obedience 
to the word of God will save men, then what becomes of 
the Universalist who has not obeyed the word? Will the 
word save him then? Nay, verily. Such will be undone 
forever. What, then, is Universalism worth? Simply 
nothing but to defraud men out of their souls. Why will 
men cling to such delusions at the peril of their souls? 
This much may be said of all the speculations that men ever 
have invented or ever may invent. The true secret of most 
speculations is that they are invented and advocated just as 
an excuse for not obeying the word. Men want to live a 
fleshly life and want an excuse for it. There is no safety 
to any living man except in a faithful submission of heart 
and life to the will of God. Everything that hinders from 
this is ruinous to all that accept. E. G. S. 

SPECULATING CONDEMNED. 

Please explain through the Gospel Advocate the meaning of Ezek. 
37 : 12-14. In doing so you will oblige a brother in Christ. 

The Jews were in captivity at the time Ezekiel used the 
language referred to, and the Lord was promising them a 
return to their own land ; and we think the language used 
in the verses referred to was a strong figure to give un- 
doubted assurances that the promises would be fulfilled. 
If any one can make anything else out of it, he is at lib- 
erty to do so. We have no time to indulge in speculations. 
We are not through with the practical in religion yet. 

SPECULATIONS ON THE SECOND COMING WHEN 
THEY CAUSE DIVISION. 

Brother Lipscomb: Inclosed you will find two tracts which were 
handed to me by one Mr. Sallie. He claims to be a Christian minis- 
ter; but he contends that Jesus, the Christ, has no visible kingdom on 
earth yet; but he is looking for him to come in person to reestablish 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 627 

his father's (David's) throne and resurrect the saints, and the apos- 
tles are to sit on twelve throne in Jerusalem. Such teaching I can- 
not subscribe to in a literal or personal sense. I think such teaching 
is calculated to cause divisions among churches and brethren, and 
thereby do a great deal of harm. Paul says: "Now I beseech you, 
brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to 
the doctrine which ye have learned: and avoid them." (Rom. 16: 
17.) And, again: "Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there 
be no divisions among you: but that ye be perfectly joined together 
in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1: 10; see 
also 1 Cor. 3: 3; 11: 18.) I told Mr. Sallie that there was no salva- 
tion in preaching and praying for the kingdom to come, but to preach 
the gospel. "Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which 
I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye 
stand; by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I 
preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. For I delivered 
unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died 
for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried, and 
that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures." (1 Cor. 
15: 1-4.) 

Brother Lipscomb, I would be pleased if you would examine these 
tracts and give the scriptural sense on the main passages that such 
men as those who preach that Christ will come to sit on the literal 
throne of his father David build their theory on. I think we need 
such teaching exposed, and I do try in my weak manner to do all that 
I can to keep brethren from believing such. I also make this request : 
If any of our preaching brethren come to Hot Springs for the ben- 
efit of the waters, to make themselves known and preach for us, as 
we aim to build up a congregation as soon as we can get brethren 
enough together. Here a preacher can preach to people from nearly 
all nations on certain occasions. 

Many of those ideas concerning the second coming of 
Christ are in themselves harmless; but if preached as the 
gospel or in lieu of the gospel, or are made hobbies to cre- 
ate division and strife among brethren, or to attract the 
people, in their faith, love, and practice, away from the 
great practical concerns of life eternal, they are evil, and 
only evil. Of such are the two tracts sent us. A man 
preaching and teaching such things and claiming simply 
to be a disciple of Christ is sailing under false colors and 
should be reported. D. L. 

SPIRIT, THE HOLY. 

Brother Sewell: I have read your comment on Acts 10, and note 
what you have said in reference to the baptism of the Holy Ghost; 
and as some who read your article may want to know what we (or 
the Bible) teach in reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit, I 
would be glad if you would answer the following questions through 
the Gospel Advocate: 

1. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to make a believer? 

2. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to produce repentance? 

3. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to produce obedience? 

4. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to prepare us for baptism 
or because we have been baptized? 



628 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

5. Does the Holy Spirit enter the heart to make us children of God 
or because we are already children? 

1. Certainly not, for Paul to the Ephesians says: "That 
we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in 
Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the 
word of truth, the gospel of your salvation : in whom also 
after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit 
of promise." (Eph. 1: 12, 13.) This passage shows that 
it was after these Ephesians believed that they received 
the Holy Spirit ; and not only that it was after they believed 
that they received the Spirit, but shows that they were in 
Christ when they received it. "In whom" — that is, in 
Christ. The word of God teaches that we enter into Christ 
by baptism; that we are baptized into Christ. None are 
ready to be baptized into him till they have believed and re- 
pented. Hence it is perfectly and positively certain that 
the Holy Spirit does not enter into the hearts of sinners to 
make them believers. Besides, the word of God teaches that 
"faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of 
God." Faith comes by hearing the word of God ; and since 
it comes by hearing God's word, it is again certain that it 
does not come by the Spirit's entering into the heart to pro- 
duce it. Again, Peter, in Acts 15 : 7, says : "Ye know how 
that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the 
Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, 
and believe." The Gentiles were to hear the word of the 
gospel, and believe; hence not made believers by the Spirit 
entering the heart. Again, John said of the miracles of 
Christ: "These are written, that ye might believe that Je- 
sus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye 
might have life through his name." (John 20: 31.) The 
word of God, the gospel, through which faith comes, is 
written down, as also the miracles that Christ performed, 
as evidence of the truths and facts of the gospel, so that 
the people may read these, or hear them proclaimed, and 
believe and be saved. This whole teaching that sinners 
must receive the Spirit of God into their hearts to make 
them believers is contrary to the word of God, and virtually 
sets that word aside, and thus destroys confidence in the 
very channel, and the only channel, through which God has 
ordained that faith shall come. Thus the word of God is 
made of none effect by the doctrines and traditions of men. 
People should be careful whom they follow, God or men. 
When they follow God, they are right, and in that case will 
certainly be saved ; if they follow men, they walk in dark- 
ness and imperil their eternal interests. 

2. No. God "commandeth all men everywhere to re- 
pent," says Paul. Sinners, therefore, are to be led into re- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 629 

pentance by the word of God, and not by the Spirit enter- 
ing into their hearts to produce it. Repentance and remis- 
sion of sins were to be preached among all nations. How, 
then, was repentance preached ? Answer : By telling the 
people that God commands them to repent, not by telling 
them that God will send his Spirit into their hearts to pro- 
duce it. This latter is the invention of men, but the former 
is the word of God. Again, the Holy Spirit said to the 
three thousand : ''Repent, and be baptized every one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and 
ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." This passage 
plainly expresses that sinners must repent before they have 
any promise of the Holy Spirit. It would be folly, would 
be utter rashness, for any one in the face of this passage 
to claim that the Spirit of God is sent into the heart of the 
sinner to produce repentance, when it plainly shows that 
the sinner must repent before the Spirit is promised, and 
that, too, in order to its reception. Christ pronounced 
many and terrible woes upon the people "because they re- 
pented not." "Because they repented not." These woes 
were pronounced, not because the Spirit did not enter into 
them to give them repentance, but because they did not. 
would not, repent. Again, Jesus said : "Except ye repent, 
ye shall all likewise perish." "Except ye repent," not "ex- 
cept the Spirit enters your hearts to give you repentance." 
The word of God commands the sinner to repent, and dooms 
him if he does not. The doctrine that the Spirit must en- 
ter the heart of the sinner to work repentance nullifies the 
word of God and causes the sinner to rest his soul upon the 
word and promise of men, and not upon the word and prom- 
ise of God. Men that teach sinners to expect this virtu- 
ally steal away the word out of their hearts, lest they should 
repent and be saved. 

3. No. Peter says : "And we are his witnesses of these 
things ; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given 
to them that obey him." (Acts 5: 32.) This passage 
needs no comment nor any additional ones. It forever set- 
tles the question that God gives his Spirit not to sinners to 
enable them to obey him, but, on the other hand, that he 
gives it to those who have become obedient. 

4. The passage we quoted from Acts 2 regarding repent- 
ance applies equally in this case, and shows as plainly as 
can be that the Spirit of God is not promised till men are 
baptized. "Be baptized, . . . and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost," is the part of the passage that ap- 
plies especially in this case, and settles the question beyond 
a peradventure. We have shown in a preceding article 



630 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

that when Cornelius and his house received the Spirit be- 
fore baptism it was the miraculous power of the Spirit, 
just such as came upon the apostles on the day of Pente- 
cost, and that it had nothing to do with their conversion in 
any way, but that it was to bear witness to both Jews and 
Gentiles that the Gentiles as well as the Jews were to be 
partakers in the blessings of the gospel of Christ, and that 
this once accomplished, the thing was never repeated. 
This case of Cornelius, therefore, has no bearing in this 
case and cannot be applied to it. So the proposition stands 
sustained by the passage in Acts 2 that people have no 
promise of the Spirit of God till baptized. There is no one 
passage in the New Testament that has been more thor- 
oughly perverted and misapplied than this one regarding 
Cornelius; and when taken as it is, it shows clearly that 
the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit upon those 
Gentiles had no more to do with their baptism, to prepare 
them for it, than the very same sort of outpouring had upon 
the apostles on the day of Pentecost, who had already been 
the disciples of Christ for about three years and a half. 
There is not a syllable anywhere to indicate that the Holy 
Spirit ever was given to an alien to prepare him for bap- 
tism. God only promises the Spirit to people when bap- 
tized into Christ, not to prepare them for this. 

5. Paul says: "And because ye are sons, God hath sent 
forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, 
Father." (Gal. 4: 6.) This passage settles the question 
clearly and beyond all dispute. There is not a greater de- 
lusion taught in the nineteenth century than that the Spirit 
of God is sent into the heart of the alien sinner to aid in 
any sense in his conversion. There is nothing of the kind 
taught in the word of God. This doctrine is defrauding 
thousands out of their souls by hindering them from an 
obedience to the gospel, without which none can be saved. 
Paul says of those that obey not the gospel : "Who shall be 
punished with everlasting destruction from the presence 
of the Lord, and from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 
1:9.) Let all read or hear and obey the word of God, the 
gospel of Christ, and then have the promise of the Spirit 
to dwell in them, that by it their mortal bodies may be 
quickened. E. G. S. 

Brethren Lipscornb and Sewell : Please explain Acts 9 : 1 ; Acts 
22 : 9. Hearing the voice in one verse, they heard not the voice in 
the other. Also, what does the word filth have reference to in 1 Pet. 
3: 21? 

1. The word hear sometimes means to understand. So 
when in one of these passages it says they heard not the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 631 

voice, understand it to mean they understood not the voice, 
and all is plain. The voice spoke in the Hebrew tongue, 
which very few then understood. Paul understood what 
was said to him in this language, but those with him did 
not. They heard the sound, but did not understand the 
meaning of what was said. 

2. The verse in Peter is where he says: "Not the putting 
away of the filth of the flesh," etc. The expression, filth 
of the flesh, was to explain to the Jewish Christians, to 
whom Peter was writing, that baptism was not to have its 
effects upon the flesh, as did many Jewish washings. He 
had just said, "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth 
also now save us;" and, fearing that his Jewish brethren 
might think that baptism, like the old Jewish washings, 
was to cleanse the flesh, he puts in the parenthesis, "(not 
the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer 
[seeking] of a good conscience toward God), by the resur- 
rection of Jesus Christ." It has no reference to sin. Sin 
is never called the filth of the flesh. Hence the passage 
does not mean, as some suppose, that baptism is not for the 
remission of sins, but it is only an explanation that he 
thought necessary to throw in to his Jewish brethren, lest 
they should think it a mere fleshly ordinance. To say that 
the expression means that baptism has nothing to do with 
the remission of sins would be to make Peter contradict 
himself in what he had just said regarding baptism now 
saving us; for while he does not mean that baptism alone 
saves us, he does as certainly mean that baptism is con- 
nected with our salvation now as that water was connected 
with the salvation of Noah and his family. E. G. S. 

Brother Lipscomb : I wish to know when the Spirit said unto 
Philip, "Go near, and join thyself to this chariot" (Acts 8: 29), if the 
Spirit when he said go spoke in an audible voice or did he articulate 
words. "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times 
some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and 
doctrines of devils." (1 Tim. 4: 1.) Now, should we conclude the 
Spirit spake here in an audible voice? If not, how did he guide the 
apostles into all truth? Or did he speak at all? Or did he move 
them by impressions? You will please give us some light on this sub- 
ject. I am of the opinion that the Spirit spake in an audible voice, 
as man speaks, in order that they might understand ; for it is evident 
that the Spirit could speak without having the organs of speech as 
man has them, for God has all power and could give the Spirit that 
power. 

There are two kinds of revelations made by the Spirit as 
presented in the Bible. One was a revelation to an individ- 
ual for his obedience ; the other, a revelation by inspiration 
to enable those inspired to work miracles and teach others. 
The prophets and apostles were subjects of this latter in- 



632 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

spiration, or revelation. It was given them to enable them 
to instruct or teach others. Connected with the knowledge 
to be revealed, always accompanying it, was the ability to 
work miracles to confirm the message as from God. This 
species of inspiration, miraculous in character, was confined 
to the primitive age of the church, and continued in force 
only until the full revelation of God to man was made and 
confirmed by testimonies which could not be gainsaid. 
This inspiration was effected by God's Spirit taking posses- 
sion of the human body, using the human tongue and 
through it speaking to the world. God's Spirit on Pente- 
cost took possession of the tongues of the apostles and gave 
the very words there spoken. The Spirit used the apostles' 
organs of speech through which to make known to the 
world his revelations. Sometimes the Spirit spoke without 
the intervention of man's tongue. The Spirit spoke in an 
audible voice on such occasions, as at the baptism of Christ, 
the calling of Samuel, and on divers other occasions. The 
Spirit, so far as we have been able to learn, never made a 
revelation or impression upon uninspired man, save through 
words articulated by the Spirit himself or by the tongue of 
another whom he used. 

• The Spirit always addressed man through his senses, 
and, in so doing, spoke words that could be understood. 
If there is an exception to this in the Bible, we would be 
glad to have it pointed out. D. L. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Much has been said pro and con 
by Methodist and Christian ministers concerning the "Holy Ghost," 
until I must say I do not understand it at all. May I ask you to set 
forth the teaching of the Bible on the subject? I know of several 
who would be glad to see an article on the subject, being in doubt as 
to which is right, and not having the ability to satisfy themselves at 
once from Holy Writ. Please do not do me as some one complained 
to Beecher a short time ago. He said he asked the editors of a 
Christian journal to satisfy him that the Bible was true, and they 
paid no attention to him. Beecher told him he might as well expect 
some scientific paper to devote its columns to prove the old theory of 
the world's motion. Please tell us what is the "Holy Ghost" — how 
he operates and when. Of course you will say he is "one of the God- 
head," but I do not understand that even. 

As to what the Spirit of God is, the Holy Spirit, we can- 
not undertake to tell. When we speak the words Holy 
Spirit, that is about as far as we go. But as to what the 
Holy Spirit has done for men and is doing, we can speak a 
little more definitely, because the Bible tells us something 
about that. 

The first mention we have of the Spirit of God is found 
in Gen. 1. After the statements that God had created 
heaven and earth, and that the earth was without form and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 633 

void, and that darkness was upon the face of the deep, we 
are told: "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of 
the waters." As to what the Spirit of God did when the 
word says he "moved upon the face of the waters," we are 
not definitely told, though we are satisfied it gave order 
and definite arrangement to the work of creation which God 
had made; for Job (26: 13) says: "By his spirit he hath 
garnished the heavens." The word garnish, according to 
Webster, means "to adorn, to decorate with appendages ;" 
and this decorating with appendages, setting in order, is 
what we understand the Spirit did on earth when he 
"moved upon the face of the waters." The earth was with- 
out form and void — that is, desolate and empty, and needed 
to be set in order, decorated with appendages, as were the 
heavens. The Spirit did not create, but set in order that 
which was created, as we learn from these passages. 

The next mention we have of the Spirit is in Gen. 6, when 
God was foretelling the flood. He there said: "My spirit 
shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh : 
yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years." Now, 
we understand from this that the Spirit would strive with 
man during that hundred and twenty years ; and if it be 
asked how it strove with men, we get information from 
Peter on that subject. He says of Jesus that he was "put 
to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit : by which 
also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison ; which 
sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering 
of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a pre- 
paring, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by wa- 
ter," etc. Christ went by his Spirit, or, rather, the Spirit 
of Christ went and preached to the spirits in prison, in the 
days of Noah, while the ark was preparing. We are also 
told by Peter (2 Pet. 2:5) that Noah was a preacher of 
righteousness. We are also told by Peter (1 Pet. 1: 11) 
that the Spirit of Christ was in the old prophets. From 
these we understand that the Spirit of God, the Spirit of 
Christ, was in Noah ; that it inspired him, preached through 
him, and thereby strove with the people by his teaching 
through Noah for one hundred and twenty years. 

Thus we learn that one of the offices or works of the Holy 
Spirit is to inspire men, or, rather, to speak through them, 
in the language of men, and in that way give the will of God 
to man. This is the manner in which the Spirit of God has 
always taught men — that is, by inspiring some men and 
enabling them to teach others ; and if the Spirit ever taught 
a single human being anything by a secret or abstract op- 
eration upon his heart, we have no account of it. Unless 



634 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

we could find it so stated in the Bible, we have no right to 
teach it ; for Peter says : "If any man speak, let him speak 
as the oracles of God." Upon this principle, unless the 
word of God distinctly says that the Spirit of God operates 
secretly, abstractly, separate and apart from the word, no 
man has any right to say so. Men's teaching that the 
Spirit operates independently of the word is what has pro- 
duced most of the trouble on the subject. The oracles of 
God say not one word about the Spirit's operating secretly 
upon men ; and if men would speak as the oracles of God on 
this subject, all jargon and discord would soon cease. 

We are told in Num. 24: 2 that the Spirit of God came 
upon Balaam, and by the inspiration of that Spirit he ut- 
tered many prophecies, or, rather, the Spirit of God uttered 
them through him. Notwithstanding the Spirit spoke 
through Balaam, he was himself a wicked man, and died in 
rebellion against God, which shows that the miraculous en- 
dowment of the Spirit was not for the personal benefit 
merely of those that received it, but to do a work through 
them for others, which they could not have done without 
such inspiration. 

Moses was the leader and lawgiver to the children of Is- 
rael, and the Spirit of God was given to him miraculously 
to enable him to do the work enjoined upon him; and when 
he complained that the work was too heavy for him, God 
told him to select seventy elders of Israel to assist him, 
and he would take of the Spirit that was upon him and put 
the Spirit upon them, that they might aid him in governing 
the people. When some of the Spirit that was upon Moses 
was put upon them, they were miraculously endowed and 
prophesied. By this means they were enabled to teach the 
people and thus aid Moses in governing them. So, then, 
the Spirit of God in that day was in a few men only, and 
through these few taught the masses the will of God. 

Nehemiah (9: 30) said of the Jews: "Yet many years 
didst thou forbear them, and testifiedst against them by thy 
spirit in thy prophets." David said in his last words : "The 
Spirit of the Lord spake by me, and his word was in my 
tongue." (2 Sam. 23: 2.) These passages show that 
among the Jews the Spirit of God inspired, spoke through 
a few, and thereby gave the will of God to the people in 
their own language wherein they were born, and guided 
them thus by words, and not by secret influences. The 
Spirit of God gave in words the Old Testament, for holy 
men spoke in old times as they were moved by the Holy 
Ghost. The Spirit of God is the author of the Old Testa- 
ment, and through his words directed such as would be con- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 635 

trolled by the word of God. Those who refused the words 
of the Spirit were never guided by him at all. Just pre- 
cisely the same thing is true in the New Testament — the 
Christian dispensation. John the Baptist was inspired 
with the Spirit, filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his 
birth ; and all that the people knew in his time was what 
he preached to them regarding the coming of Christ and 
their duties and responsibilities to him. Not a single thing 
was revealed to the people in the days of John by any se- 
cret or direct operation upon them ; but, instead of that, the 
Spirit spoke to them in plain words through John and told 
them the kingdom of heaven was at hand — was near by. 
When Christ began his personal ministry, the Spirit was 
given to him without measure. He was anointed with the 
Spirit to "preach the gospel to the poor," to "preach the 
acceptable year of the Lord ;" and during the entire minis- 
try of Jesus the people were taught in words by him and 
his apostles, and not by abstract power of the Spirit. When 
the time drew near that Jesus was to die, he told the apos- 
tles that he would soon be taken from them, but that when 
he went he would send them another Comforter, the Spirit 
of truth, that should guide them into all truth and bring to 
their remembrance all that he had said to them, and that 
this Spirit would speak. (See John 14-16.) When Jesus 
promised the Spirit to the apostles, he said of him : "Whom 
the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither 
knoweth him : but ye know him ; for he dwelleth with you, 
and shall be in you." (John 14: 17.) The Spirit was to 
come to the apostles and be in them and speak through them 
to the world ; but the world was not to receive him to guide 
them by some secret power, but he was to inspire the apos- 
tles, lead them into all the truth, and thus enable them to 
teach the way of salvation in all its fullness to the world — 
to sinners. Here is just where the difficulty arises regard- 
ing the word of the Spirit of God. Almost the whole reli- 
gious world, outside of our brethren, teaches that the Spirit 
of God is given to the world, to the sinner, to convert him, 
although Jesus said the world could not receive the Spirit. 
The people have thus been taught to wait and expect the 
Spirit of God to come and convict and convert them; and 
thousands of them are thus waiting for that Spirit of God 
to come in his secret power into their hearts, and are pay- 
ing no attention to what the Spirit says in the word of 
truth. 

This promise of the Savior to the apostles that the Holy 
Spirit should be given them to guide them into all the truth 
was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost, an account of which 



636 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

is given in Acts 2. When he came, "they were all filled, 
with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other 
tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance." On that very 
day three thousand were converted by the Spirit's preach- 
ing to them through the apostles and telling them exactly 
what to do. They gladly received the words of the Spirit 
through Peter, obeyed the words, and were thereby con- 
verted and saved by the word of God as dictated by the 
Spirit through the apostles. There is not one hint or inti- 
mation of the Spirit's entering the heart of a single sinner 
to convert him; but upon their obedience to the word they 
were promised the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit was 
promised to dwell with Christians in the temple of God, 
which is the church of God, the body of Christ. 

Paul said to the Ephesians, when speaking of Christ: 
"In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of 
God through the Spirit." The Holy Spirit, therefore, in- 
spired the apostles and enabled them to preach the gospel, 
and enabled them also to write it down, and they have 
written it, and we have it on record in the New Testa- 
ment; and, therefore, in this divine volume we have the 
same words of the Spirit that were spoken by the apostles. 
It is sufficient for the conversion of the world to the end 
of time, and is just the same to us as if the apostles were 
still here in person speaking as the Spirit gave them utter- 
ance. If preachers would cease to talk about the abstract 
work of the Spirit of God and would present to the world 
the words of the Spirit as preached by the apostles of the 
Son of God and written in the New Testament, the troubles 
on that subject would soon be at an end. Just what is writ- 
ten in the word of God is plain, if that, and that alone, were 
preached. It is what men preach that is not in the Bible 
that gives ninety-nine-hundredths of the troubles that now 
exist regarding the work of the Spirit of God and every 
other subject concerning religion. 

These things that we have written are plainly revealed in 
the New Testament, and many more, concerning the work 
of the Holy Spirit. But beyond what the word of God says 
we know nothing on the subject. The Holy Spirit, there- 
fore, reveals the will of God to man in the word of truth, 
and will thereby lead us all to a home in heaven, if we will 
but follow his divine directions. E. G. S. 

Brothei' Sewell: Kindly answer the following questions through 
the Gospel Advocate: 

1. What is the Holy Spirit? Does the Bible tell us what it is? 
If so, please give me chapter and verse. 

2. We have been studying in the Acts of Paul's trials. In chapter 
21 Paul said he was a Jew, and in chapter 22 he said he was a Ro- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 637 

man. The trouble with me is in reference to Paul's claiming to be a 
Jew and a Roman, too. 

1. The Scriptures nowhere define what the Holy Spirit 
is, and it would be folly for any uninspired man to under- 
take to define it. A much more practical question would 
be: What does the Holy Spirit do for man, and how does 
it perform its work? We read of the Spirit of God all 
through the Bible, from the beginning to the end, and read 
of much that has been done by it from the first chapter of 
Genesis to the end. But in no place are we told what it is. 
It is a divine power that has been used in all the ages and 
in every dispensation of God's dealings with men. But in 
no instance are we told what it is. It is divine, and has 
done, and is still doing, wonders for the human race. How 
much do we know about the human spirit and its make-up ? 
Simply nothing. How can we tell, therefore, about the 
Spirit of God, which is so far beyond our own spirits? But 
we can learn much about the Spirit's work in the different 
dispensations. In the Old Testament men were inspired 
by it to foretell the coming of Christ and very many other 
events that were yet in the future. Among the inspired 
men were Moses, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
Daniel, and many others inspired by its divine power, who 
gave us the Old Testament, with all the wonders that were 
performed during the existence of that long and wonderful 
period. But still grander things were done by the Holy 
Spirit during the New Testament age. John the Baptist 
was inspired by it to do his great work, while Christ was 
wonderfully endowed by it and did the most remarkable 
work that had ever been done on this earth. The apostles 
also were very largely endowed by it, and they and a few 
others gave us the New Testament, the most remarkable 
volume ever presented to the people of this world. Then 
a large number of men received spiritual gifts to enable 
them to help the churches till the New Testament should 
be given. When this was done, the miraculous powers of 
the Spirit ceased and have been known on earth no more. 
But from the time the New Testament was completed the 
Holy Spirit has been doing his work through that. All we 
know about salvation through Jesus Christ our Lord is 
what we learn by his teaching through the inspired authors 
of the New Testament. But it is wonderful that we have 
such a flood of spiritual light shining out continually, as if 
it were just being handed down from the eternal world, 
teaching so plainly and minutely everything we need to 
know about our soul's salvation. A sinner can read Acts 2 
and learn just as well what to do to be saved as if Peter 



638 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

were here now, baptized, as he was on that day, in the Holy 
Spirit. A Christian can learn just as well how to live the 
Christian life by reading the New Testament as if the apos- 
tles were here among us. We can also be assured all the 
time that this is the teaching of the Holy Spirit, as cer- 
tainly as if Peter, Paul, and James were here with us. 
These are the practical matters to us about the Holy Spirit, 
and surely this is enough. 

2. There need be no trouble about Paul's being a Jew 
and a Roman. He was a Jew by blood; but at the same 
time, and by some special privileges granted the people of 
certain localities, those born there were born with the priv- 
ilege of being recognized as freeborn Roman citizens, and 
were to be treated as such wherever found. Paul chanced 
to be one of these fortunate ones, which was very fortunate 
for him on the occasion referred to. There are full-blooded 
Germans and Irishmen to-day who are also American citi- 
zens by having become subjects of the government of the 
United States. 

SPIRIT, BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE HOLY. 

Brother Sewell: (1) What is the sin of blasphemy against the 
Holy Spirit? (2) Did the Pharisees blaspheme the Holy Spirit when 
they said he had a devil and cast out demons by the prince of demons? 
Do you think this sin can be committed now, or was it confined to the 
days of miracles? 

(1) To blaspheme is to speak impiously or reproachfully 
of God or of the Holy Spirit. To speak irreverently of the 
Spirit or his work would be blasphemy against him. To 
attribute the revelations of the Spirit to demoniacal power, 
or to place these revelations of the Spirit upon a level with 
the mutterings of departed spirits in spiritualism, or de- 
mons, would be to treat the Spirit of God with impiety — 
would be blasphemy. Hence those who regard modern 
spiritualism and set the teaching of God aside for that, if 
not guilty of blasphemy, are next-door neighbor to it. I 
presume there is not a spiritualist on earth that believes in 
modern spirit revelations (so called) that places a particle 
of sacred regard upon the revelations of the Holy Spirit 
in the New Testament. 

(2) The scribes and Pharisees who accused the Savior 
of casting out devils by the prince of the devils certainly 
did blaspheme, did sin against the Holy Spirit, as denned 
by the Savior in Mark 3. 

(3) I have no doubt but that it may be committed now. 
Men may as easily blaspheme the Spirit in his revelations 
to-day through the word of truth as they did his develop- 
ments in the days of the Savior. The Spirit of God in the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 639 

New Testament brings the last message from God to sinful 
men, and the only message whereby sinners can be saved ; 
and the man that attributes any other origin to the New 
Testament than to the Spirit of God is guilty of the blas- 
phemy against the Spirit of God. 

But there is something else more widely dangerous to 
Christians than this, and that is the fact that any sin will- 
fully persisted in to the end of life becomes unpardonable. 
I do not suppose that any who believe the Bible and are 
humbly trying to serve God will ever commit the sin of 
blasphemy against the Spirit of God ; but I fear that very 
many so-called "Christians" will be lost in eternity for not- 
obeying the words of the Spirit in the New Testament. I 
think the danger here much greater than blasphemy. "If 
ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the 
Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live." 

E. G. S. 
SPIRIT, THE GIFT OF THE. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain (1) the gift of the Holy Spirit 
promised in Acts 2: 38; (2) 1 Cor. 7: 36. 

(1) The promise of the gift of the Holy Spirit is likely 
of general character, and refers to all spiritual blessings 
pertaining to the Christian religion. The occurrences of 
the day of Pentecost were the full establishment of the 
church of God on earth, and what was promised then was 
likely to extend to the end of time to all that obey the gos- 
pel as then required. In the first place, we think it meant 
that the Spirit of God itself was to dwell in Christians in 
an important sense. Paul said to the Corinthians : "Know 
ye not that ye are a temple of God, and that the Spirit of 
God dwelleth in you?" (1 Cor. 3: 16.) This shows plainly 
that the Spirit of God dwells in Christians. Again, Paul 
says to Christians individually: "Or know ye not that your 
body is a temple of the Holy Spirit which is in you, which 
ye have from God? and ye are not your own." (1 Cor. 6: 
19.) This shows that the body of each Christian is a tem- 
ple of God and a dwelling place for the Spirit of God. In 
obeying the gospel, the whole man — body, soul, and spirit — 
is dedicated, consecrated, to God ; and it is also true that this 
consecration, this sanctification, must be continued through 
life. This can only be done by continued obedience to the 
word of God, the teaching of the Holy Spirit. People are 
made Christians by the Holy Spirit, by his teaching, and 
must continue to follow the teaching of the Spirit so long 
as life lasts. Hence, Paul says: "Let the word of Christ 
dwell in you richly." (Col. 3 : 16.) "The word of Christ" 
means the words of the Spirit given to us in the New Tes- 



640 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tament. These words dwell in us when we learn them and 
continually live by their directions. Christians are also 
commanded to "be filled with the Spirit." (Eph. 5: 18.) 
Christians, therefore, are made continually responsible for 
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In becoming Christians, 
people enter upon a spiritual life, and that must be kept up 
until death. The words of the New Testament are the 
words of the Spirit ; and when these words dwell in us and 
become the ruling principle of our lives, controlling all our 
purposes, words, thoughts, and actions, then certainly the 
Spirit of God and of Christ is dwelling in us ; but if we do 
not keep up all these things, I know of no principle upon 
which we can claim that the Spirit of Christ and of God 
dwells in us. Closely connected with these things are the 
spiritual blessings and promises to faithful Christians — 
that the eyes of the Lord are over them and his ears open to 
their prayer; that they may sit and worship together in 
heavenly places in Christ, with all the blessings of Chris- 
tian association. In the first age of the church, before the 
New Testament was completed, there were spiritual gifts, 
miraculous spiritual endowments, given by the laying on 
of the hands of others possessing miraculous endowments. 
These are called "spiritual gifts." We do not understand 
that all the early Christians possessed these, nor do we un- 
derstand that those who received them were specially and 
personally benefited and helped in living the Christian be- 
yond those who heard the teachings of those who were mi- 
raculously endowed. Those who have the New Testament 
to-day have even greater blessings than those who then 
received miraculous endowment. 

(2) This passage has reference, as is generally under- 
stood, to fathers in regard to the marriage of their daugh- 
ters. It says : "But if any man thinketh that he behaveth 
himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past 
the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do 
what he will ; he sinneth not ; let them marry." It is un- 
derstood that in that Eastern country fathers had almost 
absolute control of the marriage of their daughters, and a 
father, if he chose, could decide his daughter to a life of 
celibacy. But Paul decides that in a case like he describes, 
and the father decides it would be an injustice to his daugh- 
ter to force her into continued celibacy, he may let them 
marry without sin, although he may have decided other- 
wise. Paul in this connection was advising against mar- 
riage on account of the then existing troubles of that coun- 
try ; not that it was wrong to marry as a principle, but, as 
he said, because of the distress that was then upon them. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 641 

But, as a rule, he advised marriage as all right both in the 
sight of God and men, provided their selections were all 
right — that is, for Christians to marry Christians under 
proper limitations. 

SPIRIT, WHO "THE POOR IN." 

Brother Seivell: Please explain Matt. 5: 3-11. Who are the poor 
in spirit and they that mourn? What is meant by the meek inheriting 
the earth? 

The poor in spirit, they that mourn, they that hunger 
and thirst after righteousness, and the meek, all were in- 
tended to represent characters that would certainly obey 
the word of God and trust his promises for salvation. They 
represent people that realize that they need salvation, and 
that they are entirely dependent upon God for it. They 
do not represent people that are self-reliant, overwise, so 
as to think there is some better way than the Lord's way. 
They represent people that will be certain to obey the word 
of the Lord as soon as they hear it and have the opportu- 
nity. They do not represent those that turn away from 
the plain word of the Lord and turn and rely upon the doc- 
trines and commandments of men, as millions are doing 
to-day. Jesus knew that the class of men he was illustrat- 
ing would be certain to obey when they should hear the gos- 
pel. Hence he could say, "For theirs is the kingdom of 
heaven," and such like. What a grand thing it would be if 
all possessed the sort of faith and characters of which the 
Savior spoke in that passage ! Then all that hear the sim- 
ple gospel of Christ would obey it and be saved, as surely as 
the Bible is true. 

SPIRIT, PRAYING FOR THE HOLY. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it right for Christians to pray 
for the Holy Spirit to assist in impressing the truth of scripture upon 
the hearts of sinners? 

We can give no scripture where no scripture is given. 
We know of none on the subject, so can give none. The 
word of God is the seed of the kingdom; it is God's instru- 
mentality through which he imparts spiritual life to man. 
The word received into the heart is itself or contains the 
germ of spiritual life to man. It is not only the seed of the 
kingdom, but it is an incorruptible seed that liveth and 
abideth forever. The life-giving power of God's word 
cannot be separated from it. It is incorruptible — a life- 
giving seed that abideth forever. God gave the word as 
his power to salvation. When a man receives the word of 
God, he receives God's power to save in his heart — just as 



642 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

when a man puts a grain of wheat into the soil, he puts the 
germ of wheat life into the soil. The grain of wheat in the 
soil is the embodiment of God's power for producing wheat. 
When the proper condition of soil is found for the grain of 
wheat, it takes no extra or outward power to cause it to put 
forth all its germinative energies for the production of 
wheat. It is just so with the word of God. That word is 
imbued with God's power for converting man. It needs 
no outside, extraneous, or assisting power from without to 
make it efficacious to the end to which it was sent. It only 
needs to find the true condition of heart for development 
of the seed into the tender plant of life. The work to be 
done in both the material and spiritual world is to get the 
conditions of soil favorable to the germination of the seed. 
The heart needs preparation. The work needed to be 
done to make the word effectual for saving the soul is to get 
the heart in condition to accept that word. The Spirit 
through Paul, in Christ's stead, prayed the Corinthians that 
they would be reconciled to God. Our work should be with 
men, to get them willing to accept of God's word, to obey 
him. We must pray to God to be merciful to us, to bless 
us in the work, to open the way for his word to be preached 
that it may run and be glorified. We do not think there 
is any need of any extraneous blessing of the word. 

D. L. 
SPIRIT, BAPTISM AND GIFT OF. 

What is the difference between the gift and baptism of the Holy 
Ghost? 

The gift of the Holy Ghost is used in two different senses 
in the Bible. The Holy Spirit himself is given, as at Pen- 
tecost and on the conversion of Cornelius. "And they of 
the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many 
as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was 
poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost." (Acts 10: 45.) 
This gift of the Holy Ghost was the Holy Spirit bestowed 
on them as a gift. Peter said : "And as I began to speak, the 
Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Then 
remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John 
indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with 
the Holy Ghost. Forasmuch then as God gave them the 
like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus 
Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?" (Acts 
11: 15-17.) Peter definitely fixes the gift of the Holy 
Ghost that came to those who believed on Pentecost and 
those who believed at the house of Cornelius as a baptism 
of the Spirit. The baptism of the Spirit was the pouring 
out of the Spirit until they were overwhelmed with it and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 643 

fully endowed with spiritual powers. The result of this 
pouring out and endowment was, the different individuals 
were endued with powers, or gifts, which enabled them to 
work miracles of various kinds. These were gifts bestowed 
by the Spirit and distributed to each member as he had ca- 
pacity and was worthy to use it. 

I would define, then, the baptism of the Holy Spirit to 
be the overwhelming of the subjects by the Spirit that in- 
spired them; and the Holy Spirit thus bestowed enabled 
one to prophesy; one, to heal diseases; another, to speak 
with tongues. These were gifts bestowed by the Spirit 
and were the results of the bestowal of the Spirit. Read 
1 Cor. 12 on these. "There are diversities of gifts, but the 
same Spirit. . . . For to one is given by the Spirit the 
word of wisdom ; ... to another the working of mir- 
acles ; to another prophecy ; to another discerning of spirits ; 
to another divers kinds of tongues ; to another the interpre- 
tation of tongues: but all these worketh that one and the 
selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally [sepa- 
rately] as he will." 

The gift of the Spirit itself as outpoured from heaven, 
overpowering and overwhelming the believers, was the bap- 
tism of the Spirit. The miraculous powers bestowed by 
the Spirit of God upon the disciples were the gifts of the 
Spirit. 

We believe that the bestowal of the Spirit on the Sa- 
maritans and on the twelve at Ephesus was a baptism of 
the Spirit. At Samaria it is said: "As yet he was fallen 
upon none of them : only they were baptized- in the name 
of the Lord Jesus. Then laid they their hands on them, 
and they received the Holy Ghost." Here, as the outpour- 
ing at Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius, the recip- 
ients prophesied, and to each was distributed gifts such as 
were adapted to his talent. This bestowal of the Holy 
Spirit, then, was the gift of the Holy Spirit to the individ- 
ual or the baptism. It is a figurative use of the word bap- 
tism, just as the overpowering degree of suffering is called 
baptism, showing the overwhelming fullness of the Spirit. 
The gifts were the miraculous powers bestowed by the 
Holy Spirit on the individuals for their own preaching and 
confirming the gospel. When the perfect will of God was 
revealed, these gifts were all to vanish. "Whether there be 
prophecies, they shall fail ; whether there be tongues, they 
shall cease; whether there be knowledge [miraculous], it 
shall vanish away." The Spirit abides with us. These 
manifestations of it, given to reveal and confirm the will 
of God, have vanished away. D. L. 



644 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

SPIRIT, BIRTH OF THE. 

Brother Lipscomb: In John 3: 5, does the birth of the Spirit oc- 
cur before entrance into the church of Christ? Is the birth of the 
Spirit identical with "the gift of the Holy Ghost?" (Acts 2: 38.) 
If the Spirit dwells in the body, how can a person receive him before 
entering that body? 

The same act that completes the work of the Spirit puts 
him into the church of Christ. To be baptized is the birth 
or the bringing forth of the person begotten of the Spirit. 
He is begotten of the Spirit when he believes in Jesus as 
the Christ on the testimonies the Spirit gives in the word 
of God. He is born when he that is begotten is brought 
forth of the water. He is baptized into Christ, into his 
body, which is the church. The life or spirit of the father 
dwells in his child. It dwells in him because he is a child, 
but it is imparted to him in the begetting, and a child can- 
not exist without receiving life from the father. The life 
of the father does not dwell in one not his child. The 
Spirit of God dwells in the church by dwelling in the mem- 
bers composing that church. There is no such thing as a 
church separate or apart from the members that compose 
that church. The members compose the church of God. 
The Spirit, which is the life and gives life to the church, 
does it by giving it to the members that compose that 
church or body. No one can be a child of God save as he 
receives the life or Spirit from God, the Father. He is 
first begotten of the Spirit by the word. To be begotten 
of God is to receive the principle of life into the heart. 
Then he is born into the kingdom, or church, of God by be- 
ing baptized into Christ. The Spirit of God, impregnating 
his heart, makes him a child of God. The Spirit of his Fa- 
ther dwells in him when he becomes a child of God. The 
Spirit of God is imparted to him when he believes or is be- 
gotten of God, just as the spirit of the father is imparted 
to the child when he is begotten by his father. Jesus uses 
this begettal and birth in the natural world to illustrate 
the birth of the Spirit. The gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 
2: 38) is the bestowal of the Spirit, possibly in his miracu- 
lous manifestations. But if it means the Spirit that is be- 
stowed in the begettal, it gives no difficulty if we consider 
that the natural begetting and birth are involuntary on the 
part of the child, but in the spiritual world they are volun- 
tary — that is, the spiritual begetting is dependent upon the 
will and action of the person begotten. So he is promised, 
if he will believe and be baptized, he shall receive the Holy 
Spirit as an abiding presence in his heart, to promote the 
further growth of spiritual life, but that Spirit would be 
received in the begetting or in believing. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 645 

The Spirit of God dwells in a man because he is a child 
of God. He receives the Spirit in becoming a child of God, 
for the Spirit is imparted to him in the begettal ; so he can- 
not receive the Spirit of God, save as he becomes a child of 
God. The church is composed of individual Christians. 
The Spirit dwells in the church by dwelling in the members 
that compose the church. But the Spirit dwells in no man, 
save as he takes the word of God into his heart and treas- 
ures it there and molds his thoughts, feelings, life by that 
word. Here are two expressions that mean exactly the 
same thing: "Be filled with the Spirit; speaking to your- 
selves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing 
and making melody in your heart to the Lord." (Eph. 5: 
18, 19.) "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all 
wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms 
and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your 
hearts to the Lord." (Col. 3: 16.) To be "filled with the 
Spirit" and to "let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" 
mean precisely the same thing. Persons receive the Spirit 
of God in the heart by receiving and believing the word of 
God. The Spirit dwells in the heart by treasuring the word 
of God in the heart, and the Spirit dwells in the church by 
dwelling in the persons who compose the church. The idea 
that the Spirit enters the heart otherwise than through re- 
ceiving the word into the heart opens the door for attrib- 
uting all kinds of dreams, visions, and hallucinations to the 
Spirit. The idea that the Spirit dwells in the person or 
the church, save through and in the word cherished in the 
heart, is the fruitful mother of many hurtful errors — that 
decisions of the church are infallible, that the church un- 
der the guidance of the Spirit may change the appointments 
of God, that all the societies and institutions of men are 
prompted by the Spirit, that all results of labor not directed 
by God are approvals of the Spirit of God. The Catholic 
claims that the presence of the Spirit in the church ren- 
ders the decisions of the pope infallible; the Mormon claims 
that he gives revelations to their priests; the Methodist, 
that the Spirit in the church justifies the mourner s'-bench 
system of conversion; and those who introduce societies 
and innovations of every class and character claim they are 
results of the Spirit in the church separate from the word 
of God. The church does not exist separate from the word 
of God. The word of God furnishes the arteries and veins 
through which all influences of the Spirit and the life of 
God flow to all parts of the body. Where the word does 
not go, no spiritual truth or blessings flow. 



646 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

SPIRIT, WHEN IS ONE BORN OF? 

Brother Lipscomb: Please harmonize John 3: 3-5. When do you 
understand the birth of the Spirit to take place — at baptism or at 
death? 

I do not see what is to be harmonized in the passage. A 
man is born of the Spirit when he becomes a child of God. 
The only way to become a child of God is to be born of the 
Spirit. To be born of the Spirit and to be born of God 
mean exactly the same thing. The Spirit is the representa- 
tive of the Godhead here on earth. Since Jesus ascended to 
heaven and the Spirit descended to the earth, we cannot be- 
come the spiritual children of God without being born of 
God. All Christians are born of God, so children of God. 
Paul says : "Though ye have ten thousand [many] instruc- 
tors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers : for in Christ 
Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel/' (1 Cor. 
4: 15.) This means the Spirit of God in Paul begot them 
through the gospel, and they were born children of God. 
"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, 
that ye may grow thereby." (1 Pet. 2: 2.) These were 
spiritual children, begotten and born of the Spirit. "Be- 
hold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon 
us, that we should be called children of God: and such we 
are." (1 John 3: 1, R. V.) "Every one also that doeth 
righteousness is begotten of God." (1 John 2: 29, R. V.) 
"Every one that loveth is begotten of God." (1 John 4: 7, 
R. V.) "Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is 
begotten of God." (1 John 5: 1, R. V.) Every passage 
that says we are children of God says we have been born of 
the Spirit of God. I have quoted the Revised Version, 
which translates the word begotten instead of born of God. 
But every one that is begotten of God or the Spirit is born 
of God or the Spirit, or there has been a miscarriage or an 
abortion. Nicodemus was told that he must be born again 
to enter into the kingdom of heaven. Nicodemus was one 
of the most faithful of the children of Israel. But under 
the law of Moses they were servants ; under Christ they be- 
came sons or children. No servant could become a child of 
God without being begotten of the Spirit. He is begotten 
of a higher measure of the Spirit than a servant posseses 
to make him a son. "Because ye are sons, God hath sent 
forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, whereby ye cry, 
Abba, Father." If a faithful Jew had to be born of the 
Spirit to become a child of God, much more must an unbe- 
liever be born of the Spirit to become a child of God. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 647 

SPIRIT, THE HOLY, IN CHRISTIANS. 

Brother Seivell: (1) How does the Holy Spirit dwell in Chris- 
tians? (2) How does Christ manifest himself to us? The first 
question was asked me in our Sunday school, and I would like for you 
to answer it for me. 

(1) We may not be able to answer this question to the 
satisfaction of all, but will answer it as nearly according 
to the word of the Lord as we can. Jesus said : "It is the 
spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the 
words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, and are life." 
(John 6 : 63.) The spirit is not something we can describe 
as we could physical or material things that come in direct 
contact with our five senses. Corporeal things we can 
measure and weigh and describe in a way for others to see, 
understand, and appreciate; but not so much so in things 
purely spiritual. When Jesus says, "The words that I have 
spoken . . . are spirit, and are life," that is something 
we cannot measure and weigh and comprehend so easily. 
Yet we may approximately reach the idea. He did not 
mean that his words as written or spoken are pure spirit 
in the sense that we understand spirit ; but that his words 
were spoken by the Spirit, which was given to him without 
measure, and that the ideas they conveyed were spiritual 
ideas and produced spiritual life when received into the 
hearts and lives of people. The words that Peter preached 
on the day of Pentecost were uttered by the Holy Spirit 
through Peter; and when received and obeyed by the peo- 
ple on that day, they produced spiritual life in them. And 
if those people continued to hear and appropriate the practi- 
cal, teaching of the Holy Spirit and faithfully lived the 
Christian life, which some of them certainly did, then the 
Holy Spirit, through its divine teaching, dwelt in them and 
controlled their lives. You sometimes see numbers of peo- 
ple apparently obey the gospel at the same time, and some 
of them go right on learning and living out the very things 
the Holy Spirit teaches, and continue to fill their hearts and 
lives with it day by day; while others soon lose interest in 
the teaching of the Spirit and are as worldly as before, or 
even more so. The Holy Spirit is not in them at all. But 
those that continue in the teaching have spiritual life, 
and it may be safely said that the Spirit of God dwells in 
them. It dwells in them through the truth as taught by 
the Spirit, while those that do not follow the teaching of 
the Spirit lose all the spiritual life they received when they 
obeyed the gospel. Finally, since the spirit of infidelity 
dwells in those that disbelieve the truth, why not the Spirit 
of God dwell in those that continue to receive and walk in 



648 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the truth as taught by the Spirit, and which truth produces 
spiritual life? There is one passage that commands Chris- 
tians to be filled with the Spirit. Paul says: "Be not 
drunken with wine, wherein is riot, but be filled with the 
Spirit." (Eph. 5: 18.) Hence, Christians are responsible 
in the matter of having the Spirit to dwell in them. Paul 
says again: "But ye are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, 
if so be that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you. But if any 
man hath not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his." 
(Rom. 8: 9.) This passage again shows that Christians 
are responsible for the Spirit of God dwelling in them, and 
that if the Spirit of Christ does not dwell in us we are none 
of his, and all our fault. But what sort of a spirit did 
Christ have? He explains: "And he that sent me is with 
me ; he hath not left me alone ; for I do always the things 
that are pleasing to him." (John 8: 29.) The spirit that 
was in Jesus was to always do the things that were pleas- 
ing to his Father — that is, he always did the will of his 
Father. Now, if Christians will always strive to do that, 
they need have no uneasiness about the Spirit of God and 
of Christ dwelling in them. They will then be in full har- 
mony with God and with Christ. 

(2) Jesus says: "He that hath my commandments, and 
keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth 
me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and 
will manifest myself to him." (John 14: 21.) This 
shows, in the first place, that the man that has and keeps 
the commandments of Christ is the man to whom Christ 
will manifest himself. And evidently he means that he 
will manifest himself to these through the promised bless- 
ings he guarantees to the faithful till they are safely housed 
in heaven, which is the final promise to all the faithful. It 
does not mean any sort of visible, personal, or miraculous 
manifestations, but that all of his promises of love, good- 
ness, and mercy will be fulfilled to all the faithful through 
time and into eternity. 

SPIRIT, WATER, AND BLOOD. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain 1 John 5: 7, 8. 

A part of both of these verses, according to critics, is an 
interpolation. The verses, when relieved of the interpo- 
lation, read thus : "For there are three that bear record, the 
Spirit, and the water, and the blood ; and these three agree 
in one." This much of the two verses is understood by all 
critics to be genuine. The testimony given by the Spirit, 
the water, and the blood is given in behalf of the Son of 
God. The Spirit of God testifies through the apostles of 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 649 

Christ. The Spirit spoke through them, and his testimony 
has been written down and stands on record in the New 
Testament. The water, in baptism, testifies Christ was 
buried and rose again. Penitent believers are buried with 
him in baptism and raised up to walk in newness of life. 
The fact that such an institution exists and is adminis- 
tered in the name of Christ is evidence that he was once 
on earth, as such an ordinance could never have gained a 
footing among men if the facts it represents had never 
occurred. So also the blood of Christ, through its emblem, 
the wine, in the Lord's Supper, is continually testifying in 
behalf of Jesus, as such a practice could never have been 
established had not the fact it represents taken place. 

E. G. S. 

SPIRIT, WITNESS OF THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: I would be pleased to have your 
explanation of Rom. 8: 16 through the Gospel Advocate. The sects 
use it as a strong point in favor of the direct operation of the Spirit. 
Was the Holy Spirit given as a Comforter to any excepting the apos- 
tles? 

The verse above mentioned says : "The Spirit itself bear- 
eth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of 
God." The Spirit of God always gives its testimony 
through words, never otherwise. In this verse there are 
two witnesses. The Spirit of God is one witness, and our 
spirits the other. Both bear testimony to the fact that we 
are the children of God. The Holy Spirit tells us what to 
do to be saved, to become the children of God; and our 
spirits know and testify when we have done this, and thus 
by these witnesses any one can tell when his sins are par- 
doned. And upon the same principle any one can tell 
whether God continues to own him as a child or not. The 
Spirit of God tells us how to live the Christian, and our 
spirits can always testify whether we are doing those things 
or not and whether we may continually enjoy the promises 
of God to his children or not. The Holy Spirit bears his 
testimony through the works of the apostles, and no man 
has a spiritual idea regarding salvation that has not come 
through apostles as found in the New Testament; and 
when men look for spiritual influences outside of the words 
of the Spirit, they will be forever subject to all kinds of 
extravagances or delusions that their leaders may have a 
mind to impose upon them. The Spirit made thousands 
of Christians in the days of the apostles by speaking 
through them and telling sinners what to do ; but not one 
was made a Christian otherwise. We have these same 



650 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

words now, and all may be Christians by them if they 
will. 

We understand that all who obey the gospel and come 
into the temple of God receive the Spirit to dwell with them. 
We would not, however, pretend to say that the Spirit that 
is promised to dwell in the Christian is a Comforter in the 
sense that he was to the apostles. The Spirit comforts 
Christians through his words upon the same principle that 
he makes Christians through his words. But we are abun- 
dantly assured that the Spirit dwells in Christians. 

SPRINKLING IN EZEK. 36: 25. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain Ezek. 36: 25, by- 
request of a friend of mine. 

The verse alluded to in Ezekiel has no reference to bap- 
tism or the Christian institution in any sense. The lan- 
guage was addressed to the Jews in the time of their cap- 
tivity and in immediate connection with a promise of their 
return to their own land. The sprinkling of clean water 
is an allusion to the water of separation required in the law 
of Moses. For an explanation of this water, read Num. 19. 
The Jews had been a good while in captivity among the 
heathen, and had, doubtless, acquired many impurities of 
heart and life by their continual contact with strangers. 
Verse 36 is a promise that God would cleanse them from 
all filthiness and from their idols. The clean water of the 
law of Moses was to separate the Jews from uncleanness. 
God, and not men, was to do the sprinkling mentioned here. 
He had in the preceding verse promised to take them from 
among the heathen and gather them into their own land, 
and the sprinkling of clean water and the cleansing was to 
take place among them. The Jews returned from cap- 
tivity five hundred years before baptism was ever insti- 
tuted. This passage, therefore, could have no reference to 
it in any way. It was only a promise to the Jews of some- 
thing to be done for them at their return from Babylon. 

E. G. S. 

SPRINKLING, IS IT EVER CALLED "BAPTISM" IN THE 
BIBLE? 

Brother Sewell: Is sprinkling ever called baptism anywhere in 
the Old or New Testament? A Methodist preacher has just closed a 
meeting in this place, denying that any case in the New Testament 
Scriptures means immersion, basing his arguments on the passage in 
Isa. 52: 15. 

Most assuredly not. These two words do not mean the 
same thing in any sense, and, therefore, could not be indif- 
ferently applied to the same act. If John the Baptist had 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 651 

only sprinkled a little water on the people, he would never 
have been called the Baptist, which means the baptizer, 
and baptize means literally to immerse. The words im- 
merse and sprinkle cannot both be applied to the same act, 
because one means one specific act and the other means 
another specific act, so widely different from each other 
that no man that knows what he is talking about will ever 
apply these words to the same act. If a woman sprinkles 
a little water upon a garment to prepare it for ironing, it 
would be utterly false to say she immersed it. The Greek 
word baptidzo means precisely the same in that language 
that immerse does in English, while the word rantidzo 
means the same in Greek that sprinkle does in English ; and 
these two words are never applied to the same act either in 
Greek or English. The word baptidzo is always used to 
express the ordinance of baptism in the Greek Testament, 
while the word rantidzo is always used to express sprin- 
kling. To this rule there are no exceptions in the original 
Greek, nor in their corresponding word in the English New 
Testament. Every time a preacher, when about to perform 
the act of baptism, says, "I baptize you/' and then sprinkles 
a few drops of water upon him, he misrepresents truth, 
either in the word he uses or in the act that he performs. 
If I say, "I immerse you," and sprinkle a few drops of wa- 
ter upon the candidate, do I not express or enact a false- 
hood? It is certain that I say one thing in word and in 
act say another that utterly falsifies what I say in word. 
But the word of God never misses the truth that way. It 
never says immerse where sprinkle is meant. 

As to the passage named in Isa. 52 : 15, it is in a proph- 
ecy uttered seven hundred years before baptism was ever 
heard of, and in a general prophecy concerning Christ, in 
which there is not an intimation of any ordinance at all. 
It says of him: "So shall he sprinkle many nations; the 
kings shall shut their mouths at him: for that which had 
not been told them shall they see; and that which they had 
not heard shall they consider." The American Revised 
Version renders it sprinkle in the passage, but in the mar- 
gin puts the word startle. The whole connection indicates 
that it means to startle, to astonish ; that the mission and 
work of the Son of God would startle, astonish, the whole 
world in his wonderful mission and work among men. 
The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septua- 
gint, renders the Hebrew word into Greek by the word 
thaumadzo, which means literally to astonish, to marvel, to 
wonder at. The wonders accomplished through Christ for 
the redemption of man will never cease to amaze the whole 



652 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

world. But the very idea of going back seven hundred 
years before the ordinance of baptism was ever heard of, 
instead of looking to the introduction of that ordinance and 
studying the meaning of the word used by divine authority 
to express it, to settle that question, is amazing. If a word 
had been used to express that ordinance that was ever de- 
fined to express or to in any way mean sprinkle, then there 
might be a little showing for sprinkling as well as immer- 
sion ; but the word that John, Christ, and his inspired apos- 
tles used all the time to express that ordinance means 
strictly to immerse, to place the whole body under water, 
thus burying the whole man with Christ in this ordinance. 
To make the word sprinkle refer to the action of baptism 
under the new covenant makes Isaiah contradict John the 
Baptist, Christ, the apostles, and the Holy Spirit in regard 
to the action of the ordinance called baptism, and makes 
him contradict every standard Greek and English lexicon 
upon the face of the earth on the meaning of the word bap- 
tidzo, every one of which renders that word to mean inir 
merse. But to allow Isaiah to say startle, or astonish, 
makes perfect harmony with the New Testament on that 
subject. 

"STAR IN THE EAST," WHAT WAS? 

I wish you to answer the following question: Was the star in Matt. 
2: 2, 7, 9 a literal guide or a figurative expression? We find it has 
reference to a great many places in the Old and New Testaments. 

The star spoken of was evidently a literal, real appear- 
ance to the men who are mentioned in the passage. We 
need not suppose that it was a literal, actual star — one of 
those we behold at night ; but a literal light, appearing to 
them like a star, that went and stood over where Jesus was, 
and thus pointed out to them the place that they might find 
him. 

STORMS, DOES GOD SEND? 

Brother Sewell: Does God send the storms, or was it so arranged 
in creation that they come? 

There are some things people can say about the wind 
with a good deal of certainty, and some things about which 
they cannot speak so confidently. In the first place, it is 
certain that God has something to do with winds and 
storms, as the following passages show: "They that go 
down to the sea in ships, that do business in great waters ; 
these see the works of Jehovah, and his wonders in the 
deep. For he commandeth, and raiseth the stormy wind, 
which lifteth up the waves thereof." (Ps. 107 : 23-25.) It 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 653 

is said that he "walketh upon the wings of the wind" and 
that he "maketh winds his messengers" and "flames of fire 
his ministers." (Ps. 104: 3, 4.) He used a strong east 
wind to open a channel in the Red Sea for the children of 
Israel to pass over. Again, when they murmured, it is 
said: "And there went forth a wind from Jehovah, and 
brought quails from the sea, and let them fall by the camp, 
about a day's journey on this side, and a day's journey on 
the other side, round about the camp, and about two cubits 
above the face of the earth." (Num. 11: 31.) Thus the 
winds were used to bring them a great abundance of food. 
But in attempting to eat the quails they were smitten with 
a great plague. So while the wind seemed a great blessing, 
it was turned into a great scourge. (See verses 32, 33.) 
Other passages might be cited where the Lord used the 
wind for the accomplishment of ends, but these may suffice. 
That the Lord to-day may use winds both as a blessing 
and as scourges may be true, but we may not always be 
able to tell with certainty what is the purpose to be ac- 
complished in every particular storm. It is also evident 
that winds blow from God's laws, call them natural or what 
we may ; but we may be left in uncertainty as to what was 
intended to be accomplished. But there is one thing about 
winds and storms: we may always be admonished by all 
such scourges to get closer to the Lord in our own lives 
and to strive more earnestly to do the will of God in all 
things. These great and destructive storms ought to be a 
most solemn warning to all men of the shortness and uncer- 
tainty of our earthly lives. They show us how quickly we 
may be snatched away without one moment's time for even 
an effort to make preparation. They should impress aliens 
with the great importance of becoming Christians, and 
should impress all Christians with the great importance of 
being always ready for the summons to come. All people 
become careless and indifferent about their responsibilities 
to God, about the importance of doing good, and of being 
pure and holy and good, and helping to bring about the day 
when all shall be sons and daughters of the Lord Almighty. 
When everything goes on smoothly, the tendency is for peo- 
ple to cultivate a feeling of security and of forgetfulness of 
future destiny. We are told that "all things work together 
for good to them that love God." So Christians ought to 
receive good from warning, as well as from every blessing ; 
and all the people ought to be awakened to a more sober 
sense of a preparation for usefulness here and a better 
home hereafter. Hence, whether we can tell what partic- 
ular end may have been intended by such calamities as 



654 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

these great storms or not, all people should stop and con- 
sider their attitude before God and try to better their con- 
dition. These great chastisements, these terrible calam- 
ities, do not occur for naught ; and if we are not made bet- 
ter by them, it will be because we refuse or willingly neg- 
lect the warning. 

SUNDAY SCHOOL, THE. 

I want you to tell me through your paper the difference, if any, 
between the church and Sunday school as organized bodies. Should 
they be run separately, or should the church control the school — I 
mean literally? 

It is the privilege and duty of every Christian to use ev- 
ery opportunity that offers to teach the word of God to oth- 
ers. This teaching may be done to one alone, to a class, 
or to a promiscuous audience, as the qualifications of the 
teacher and the surroundings may suggest is best. This 
is all to be done in accordance with the laws of Christ, in 
violation of no law laid down. It is to be done in the name 
of Christ, as a member of his body. We cannot do a thing 
in the name of Christ when it is done as a member of a 
body not authorized by him. Christ never ordained any 
organization except his churches. In these, as members 
of his body, his children must work. No Sunday school 
or missionary or charitable organization outside of his 
church has ever been authorized. No Christian has a right 
to work in any of these human organizations. He must do 
what he does as a member of the body of Christ. Acting 
as a member of that body, he must do it with a proper re- 
gard for the members of that body. The elders are made 
the rulers to see God's laws carried out. 

Work ought to be done in harmony with this position of 
the elders. This does not mean that they should never 
work save as the elders direct or that they should wait for 
the elders to tell them before they work. Unfortunately, 
some get in as elders who never direct or advise work. In 
the church the elders should see all work is done as the Bi- 
ble directs, teach the Bible, do all in the name of Christ. 
But when men are away from the church and opportunity 
offers, they should teach — teach individuals and classes — as 
opportunity offers. They should do it as members of the 
church and not as members of some human organization. 
Paul and Barnabas preached thus, and then reported their 
work to the church. It is a good example to follow. These 
inspired men of God honored God's church; and, notwith- 
standing their inspiration, they honored the elders of the 
churches. We would do well to follow their examples, and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 655 

in all things honor the church of God, and do all that we do 
as members of that church, and all in the name of Christ 
Jesus. Then no one should work as a member of any as- 
sociation save the church of Christ. All should be under 
the direction or oversight of the elders. A Sunday school 
should be nothing more than the church through its mem- 
bers teaching the word of God. 

SUNDAY SCHOOLS, AUTHORITY FOR. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: I see a great deal said in the pa- 
pers about Sunday schools, Sunday-school associations, superintend- 
ents, Sunday-school officers generally. Now, as the disciples have 
been such sticklers for the Bible, and Bible alone, condemning all 
plans and human institutions, please give us an article on the sub- 
ject. As I have never found any Sunday school in the Bible, it seems 
to me a little like Beecher's ox yoke. If there is any authority for it 
in the Bible, I want to see it. 

s>/ There is just the same authority for teaching old and 
young the Bible in classes or in a school on Sunday at 
church as there is for preaching sermons. God requires 
the Bible to be taught to the old and the young. He has 
not ordained any specific mode of teaching, but has set the 
example of teaching in the public sermons by questions 
and answers, by reading the Scriptures to one or more or 
letting them read it and question them in reference to its 
meaning, or by simple verbal statement to one or more. 

It is the duty of the church to teach children and old 
people who can be induced to attend the meeting. It is 
right to teach them in the way it can be most effectually 
done. We have not had a doubt for years that the most 
effective way of teaching people the word of God, if they 
will study, is to take them in classes and read and study 
the word of God. It is more pleasant to hear a good talker 
embellish and illustrate and talk about some subject than 
it is to study it ourselves. So it would be greatly more 
pleasant for a child to hear a teacher give an entertaining 
talk than to make him study out his lessons at school. But 
while it would be more pleasant, it certainly would not 
teach them so well or thoroughly. If our object is enter- 
tainment, the preaching of an accomplished speaker is the 
better ; if to give the knowledge of the Scriptures, the class 
for old and young is the better. Remember, one is just as 
divine as the other. 

- ' We become habituated to certain modes of procedure 
and unconsciously come to think them divine, and others to 
which we are not accustomed we think human innovations. 
We conclude this without examination. This arises from 
an unconscious self-sufficiency — satisfaction with self and 



656 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

our ways. This feeling is a great hindrance to the truth. 
Then Sunday schools under the direction and control of the 
churches are right and have just as much of divine war- 
rant as preaching. Preaching is right. Every human 
being in the world ought to be preached to or taught the 
word of God, but both the preaching and teaching ought to 
be done through God's appointed agencies. His church, 
through its operations, unamended by man, ought to do this 
work^/ It is treason against God to say his appointments 
insufficient. It is an exaltation of man above God to 
say the arrangements and inventions of man are more ef- 
fective than God's, or that God's appointments and insti- 
tutions may be improved and rendered more efficient by 
human additions to them. 

Human organizations for preaching the word of God al- 
ways subvert their object or end. They corrupt that word, 
nullify that word, and destroy their own ability to preach 
the word by depreciating it and exalting men's reason above 
the word of God. They, in their operations, make neces- 
sary twice the amount of money needed under divine ap- 
pointments; they incite men ambitious of worldly honors 
and high salaries to scheme for places, position, and control 
in these associations. In their operations they make men 
stingy, illiberal, and unreliable in their contributions. They 
do this by substituting wrong motives for the divine ones 
and displacing a disposition for God's sacrifices with a love 
to be seen of men in their gifts. 

But this is just as true of human associations to teach 
the Bible through Sunday schools as it is of human associ- 
ations to preach the gospel by public speaking. Sunday- 
school societies, separate and distinct from the church of 
God, are open to every objection that missionary societies 
are. It is strange to see men oppose one and approve the 
other. Men can be found who oppose one, and then, when 
they can be leaders or occupy places of honor and emolu- 
ment in the other, earnestly support it. The besetting sin 
of the world, of the religious world, in all ages has been to 
forget that God is wiser than man. Yet the experience of 
the world teaches that human inventions and devices inva- 
riably thwart their own end, overreach their own design, 
and destroy that which they were builded to sustain. Hu- 
man Sunday-school associations are no exceptions to this 
rule. They are built up to teach the word of God and to 
build up the churches. That they destroy men's respect 
for the one and weaken the other I have never had a doubt. 

The difference in principle between the missionary soci- 
eties which many in your State oppose and the Sunday- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 657 

school associations, in which they labor, in which they hold 
office, and from which they receive support, it takes one 
wiser than I am to see. Preaching is right; teaching the 
children the Bible at meeting on Sunday is right. The 
church, through its eldership, ought to see that both are 
done, and done in accordance with the provisions of the 
word of God. God's church, as he gave it, is fully compe- 
tent to do all God's work on earth. A work that it cannot do, 
and do better and more effectually than any and all other 
institutions of earth can do, is not of God. Teach the chil- 
dren, by all means, the word of God, and do not destroy 
their respect for that word by showing you think men's in- 
stitutions more effective for good than God's as set forth in 
his word. D. L. 

SUNDAY SCHOOLS, LITERATURE IN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Is it right to use literature in the Sunday 
school ? 

Webster defines literature as learning. Anything learned 
is literature. It more especially refers to what is learned 
from books or things written. To spell and read is to use 
literature. Anything learned from the Bible is literature. 
/We usually call that which is learned from the Bible sacred 
literature; that learned from other things, secular, com- 
mon, or profane literature. The Bible is literature in the 
strictest sense. It is written. When one speaks or hears 
what is taught in the Bible or other books or things, he 
uses literature just as much as he does who writes or reads 
what is taught. Every one who studies and teaches or 
ears the Bible uses literature. Every thought and word 
God has given to the world was first spoken, then written 
by God's Spirit. God has just as much authorized us to 
teach and learn by reading as he has by hearing. A truth 
that goes into the heart through the eye will save just as 
surely as a truth that goes through the ear. All objection 
to literature by persons who talk or hear, write or read, to 
teach or learn, is self-stultification. My observation has 
been that those who object to printed or written literature 
are those who think they are very wise and know every- 
thing themselves, and the use of the printed literature pre- 
vents their explaining their literature orally. In other 
words, it cuts them out of the opportunity of speechmak- 
ing. Their talking may be a good thing if they know what 
to say and how and when to say it. A thoughtful and 
studious teacher can often apply what he learns to the spe- 
cial condition of those he is teaching in a way that no writer 
or speaker to a general audience can do. On the other 



658 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

hand, to refuse all outside literature is to cut them off from 
much helpful teaching. The thing to do is to follow God's 
example. Use both speaking and writing as a means of 
teaching — that is, let the teacher study the lessons for him- 
self and add all thoughts and suggestions he can, and ap- 
ply the teaching to the conditions of the pupils. The great 
evil is, neither teacher nor pupils study the lessons. I 
think the old way of having the young especially memorize 
portions of scripture the better way. It will then stay with 
a child through life. Though he may not then understand 
it, it will often come up to him in life and cause him to 
think of it. It seems to me it would not be a heavy task 
for the pupils to memorize and repeat the scripture lesson. 
Then use the literature, written and oral, in explaining it. 
How many will undertake to memorize during the week the 
scripture lesson ? 

SUNDAY-SCHOOL WORK, SHALL SINNERS LEAD IN? 

Brother Lipscomb: I hate to trouble you, but we have members in 
our church here that think it is right for sinners to lead in the song 
service in Sunday-school and church services. Is it right for a sinner 
to teach a class of Christians in Sunday school? Please let us hear 
from you through the Gospel Advocate. 

I have never known times or persons or places in which 
it is wrong to study the Bible. Once I knew a sister with 
some children to move out to the back parts of Texas — 
when it had back parts. There was no church or members 
of the church there, but a saloon keeper. This sister wanted 
to study the Bible, to study it herself and teach it to her 
children and the people. She talked of a school to study the 
Bible. The saloon keeper was the only man willing to take 
the lead, make the appointments, and do the work of a su- 
perintendent. She wrote me about it, and I wrote her to 
study the Bible with the saloon man as superintendent. I 
was in, a community where there were no brethren. I went 
home with a man and found him a saloon man. The peo- 
ple wanted preaching. He offered his saloon as a place. I 
preached in it. I only regret I have not preached from 
more saloons. I more fear that God will condemn me for 
keeping away from such places to preach and teach the 
best I can than that he will condemn me for using the op- 
portunities granted me to preach in them. "Go ye into all 
the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." The 
saloons are in the world, the places of shame and sin are in 
the world, and it is not right to ignore them. The Master, 
when he was here, went and ate with the sinners and in- 
vited them to become his followers. Many of them did. I 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 659 

apprehend many of us will be condemned for our overmuch 
righteousness in keeping away from the sinners. This is 
not encouraging any to affiliate with them in their sinful 
ways. Then there are some hymns written for sinners to 
sing, to encourage them to good and holy lives. They ought 
to sing those songs. Christians ought to learn to sing 
themselves and not to depend on sinners to worship for 
them. But to draw lines and make impassable barriers 
over which the sinner cannot come when he desires to draw 
near to God is frequently overdone, and we Christians with 
an abundance of self -righteousness are more exclusive than 
God. Our zeal for God ought to lead us in all our service. 
But sinners cannot worship for Christians. 

SUNDAY-SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENTS. 

Brother Sewell: Is it scriptural to have Sunday-school superin- 
tendents? If so, where do we get our scripture for them? Is it 
scriptural to have more than one teacher teaching in the same house 
at one time? Does it not cause confusion in the church? And does 
not Paul say in 1 Cor. 14 that we are to speak one at a time, so we 
will not make confusion? "For," says he, "God is not the author of 
confusion." 

We do not think it best to give the name Sunday school to 
the work of teaching the word of God to the young on the 
first day of the week, since there have been and still are 
some things done in Sunday schools, so called, that are un- 
scriptural; and this causes misunderstandings and preju- 
dice against the work of teaching the word of God to the 
young and others on that day. Christians can meet and do 
this work without organizing themselves into any sort of 
official body, and need not give it any official name. The yC 
teaching work is not done at the hour of public worship 
that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor. 14, and should not be confused 
with it. In this teaching service the learners should cer- 
tainly be divided into classes and taught according to their 
advancement in Bible study, and there need be no confusion 
by having different classes in the same room. The trouble 
is, people mix the teaching of classes in their minds with 
the regular worshiping assembly when the whole church is 
together for congregational worship. Let the teaching of 
classes be done at one hour and the regular congregational 
worship at another, and there will be no trouble. There is 
nothing unscriptural in having some competent brother to 
lead or preside in the teaching service, that all things may 
"be done decently and in order." 



660 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

SUPPER, THE LORD'S, AND THE PASSOVER. 

Brother Sewell: Explain the difference between the Lord's Sup- 
per and passover, as we have a brother who thinks it is the same and 
should be taken on the same day of the month and at night, in pre- 
cisely the same manner the Jews did the passover. 

How any one can reach the conclusion that the Lord's 
Supper of the New Testament and the Jewish passover of 
the Old Testament are one and the same thing is very 
strange. There is nothing about the two that makes them 
at all resemble each other. The Jewish passover was a 
feast to be eaten once a year. Each family was to take a 
lamb without blemish and slay it in the evening, and take 
the blood and sprinkle of it upon the lintel and posts of the 
door, to be a sign to the destroying angel, so that he was to 
pass by the houses of the Israelites and not destroy any of 
their firstborn. Then the flesh of the lamb was to be 
roasted by the fire and eaten with unleavened bread and 
bitter herbs, and they were to eat it with their loins girded 
and their staves in their hands ready to start out in haste. 
The design of this passover was expressed in these words : 
"It is the sacrifice of the Lord's passover, who passed over 
the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt, when he smote 
the Egyptians and delivered our houses." (Ex. 12: 27.) 
But the Lord's Supper consists of bread and wine, to be 
taken by the disciples of Christ on the first day of the 
week in memory of the broken body and shed blood of the 
Savior. No two things can be more unlike, both in the 
things composing them, the manner of eating, and the de- 
sign. The trouble in all these matters is that men will go 
by what they think, and not by what the word of God says. 

E. G. S. 
SUPPER, WHO SHOULD EAT THE LORD'S? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: There is a question which I deem 
of great importance to Christians, concerning which I wish to call 
your attention — that is, who are scripturally authorized to partake 
of the Lord's Supper? Some of our brethren are in favor of what is 
called close communion, while others are opposed to this course, and 
speak in favor of at least permitting, if not inviting, professors of 
the denominations to partake with themselves, justifying themselves 
by saying we have not the privilege or right to invite or debar, and 
that we are not to judge others. "But let a man examine himself, 
and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup." Those who 
are in favor of what is called close communion contend that the plan 
of salvation is certainly plain. They understand the conditions 
which, when complied with, constitute one a member of the body of 
Christ, and they understand also that no one is scripturally a member 
of that body until he has complied with those conditions. They also 
understand that the New Testament teaches just as unmistakably 
that the Supper was instituted to be observed by Christians — not 
Christians merely in profession or in feeling, but those who have be- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 661 

come so by obeying the truth. In the face of these facts, what good 
reason can there be urged why a man who has lived from his spiritual 
cradle up by "faith only" in declared disobedience to what is termed 
the nonessentials of the gospel should be encouraged to come forward 
and partake of the emblems of the Lord's broken body and shed blood ? 

We have repeatedly stated our conviction that no one 
save obedient children of our Father has any rights in 
the Lord's house. God has told us who are his children, 
and has instituted his Supper for their participation. It 
is destroying the significance of the ordinance, as well as 
usurping authority not granted to us, to invite or encourage 
others to participate. Besides, it destroys the strength of 
our protest against those who set aside God's appointments. 

D. L. 
SUPPER, WHEN TO EAT THE LORD'S. 

Brother Lipscomb : In all the meetings of the apostles we find that 
they met together for the purpose of breaking bread, to remember the 
sacrifice of their Lord and Master. That was the essential thing that 
brought them together; and when they were brought together, it was 
a means of spiritual growth to them. And in all our meetings on 
Lord's-day morning and night, and also at the midweek prayer meet- 
ing, is it not necessary that we should partake of the emblems at all 
times when we meet together to worship him? Is it not just as neces- 
sary to break bread at all those meetings as it is to teach, to sing, and 
to pray? 

I have not found that the apostles and early Christians 
broke bread at all their meetings. Nor have I found it was 
the essential thing above other acts of service for the meet- 
ing. They were steadfast "in the apostles' teaching and 
fellowship, in the breaking of bread and the prayers." 
(Acts 2: 42.) I do not see why one of these acts of wor- 
ship should be made chief above the others. They are all 
ordained of God and all important. It is the work of man 
to exalt one above the others. In Acts 20 : 7 it is said that 
on the first day of the week, when the disciples were come 
together to break bread, Paul preached to them. This 
speaks as though it was customary to meet on the first day 
of the week. There are accounts of other meetings for 
other purposes at which no allusion to the breaking of bread 
is made. I am sure the breaking of bread was attended to 
only on the first day of the week, and I could attend to it at 
no other time. The worship of the Lord's day cannot be 
acceptably observed without breaking of bread, and it can 
be attended to only on the Lord's day. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: I see in the Gospel Advocate some 
excellent things on the time of taking the Supper. I have two ques- 
tions relative to this which I will be pleased to have you answer. 

1. Does Sunday night, from dark to midnight, properly belong to 
the first day of the week? And is it proper to take the Supper dur- 



662 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ing that time? If the Jews in Christ's time counted the day begin- 
ning at sunset and closing at sunset, it seems that the period called 
the first day closes at sunset on Sunday evening. I have frequently 
taken the Supper after preaching on Sunday night. Was this wrong 
or not? 

2. Is it right to take the Lord's Supper twice during the same 
day? In preaching to two congregations the same day, this question 
comes up. I have always refused to take it the second time. Some 
brethren say I did wrong; that the expression as oft, etc., proves that 
we should let no opportunity for taking it pass. This, to me, would 
prove too much. Who is right? 

There is nothing in the New Testament that definitely 
settles at what particular time the Lord's day begins nor at 
what particular hour it ends. The Jewish custom of be- 
ginning at sunset one evening and closing the same time 
the next evening has nothing to do in settling this question. 
About the nearest approach we have to the matter is when 
Matthew, speaking of the resurrection, says : "In the end of 
the Sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the 
week." This passage shows that, in the estimation of Mat- 
thew, the Sabbath only ended about the dawning of the 
morning, and that with the dawning the first day of the 
week began. And with that before us, we might say that 
the first day of the week begins with the dawning of the 
morning of that day, and the twenty-four hours would then 
last till the dawning of the next morning. With that count, 
any time from the dawning on Sunday morning till the 
dawning of Monday morning would be the Lord's day. But 
we are inclined to think that Matthew had more particular 
reference to that part of the twenty-four hours that is light, 
and is called day proper, when he said the first day of the 
week, and that just the same is meant in Acts 20 : 7. We 
would, therefore, prefer always to take the Supper in the 
first or leading part of day proper, in the forenoon, when 
the mind and body are most active and vigorous; but we 
would be willing if circumstances required to take it any 
time of the afternoon or any part of the night up to mid- 
night, but would always prefer the forenoon. I do not 
know of any better method or anything more scriptural than 
to take the modern method of beginning the twenty-four 
hours at midnight and end at midnight. Hence, any time 
between midnight Saturday night, which ends Saturday, 
and Sunday night to twelve, would be Lord's day. We 
doubt not it would be acceptable to eat the Supper on Sun- 
day night; but we would always prefer to take the word 
literally and eat in the daytime, during daytime proper. 
In that case we may certainly know that we are following 
Bible language. 

As to whether we may partake more than once on the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 663 

same day, we know of nothing on the subject in the word of 
God. When we meet and take the Supper once, the require- 
ment is filled. We do not know that it would be wrong to 
take it more than once. We have a few times done so with 
sick members in the afternoon, after having partaken with 
the congregation in the morning; but we do not pretend to 
claim Bible authority for it as such. We are inclined to 
think, however, that a second participation would not be 
beyond the bounds of the Scripture requirement of break- 
ing bread on the first day of the week, but we are not going 
to argue for it. We have never understood the expression 
as oft, etc., to have any reference to partaking more than 
once the same day, and do not think it can be properly so 
applied. The apostle only meant to teach that when we 
take the Supper we should always take it in remembrance of 
Jesus. As oft as only means every time, and, therefore, 
means that every time we take the Supper (which should be 
every Lord's day, as shown by other passages) we must 
take it in memory of Christ, and that also every time we 
partake of it we "do show the Lord's death till he come." 
We only understand the passage to refer to taking the Sup- 
per every Lord's day, but not to more times than one on 
the same day. E. G. S. 

SUPPER, QUESTIONS ON THE LORD'S. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Is it scriptural for a Christian to break bread 
alone? (2) I am thinking seriously over instruments of music in the 
home. If we worship God in singing hymns at home, would it not 
be wrong to sing with the instruments in the home, as well as in the 
public assembly? (3) Did God ever command any one to make an 
instrument of music, and on whose side did the instruments originate 
— with the children of God or with the children of men? (4) If it be 
a sin for a Christian to marry a sinner, what must be done in order to 
get forgiveness of that sin, as we believe all sins must be pardoned to 
obtain eternal life? (5) When does the Christian become perfect, 
and when did Jesus become perfect? 

(1) If a Christian should be so situated that he cannot 
meet with others, we can see no reason why he could not take 
it alone ; but if there be others he can meet with, then the 
requirement is not to forsake "the assembling of ourselves 
together." (Heb. 10: 25.) 

(2) It would be about as objectionable to worship God 
with an instrument at home as at the meetinghouse, so far 
as we can tell. We see no wrong in having instruments at 
home as an entertainment; but when we worship in the 
home, let the instrument be silent. 

(3) God never commanded any man to make a musical 
instrument to worship him with. The first that we read 
about instruments of music was in the family of Cain, and 



664 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

they likely were the first to invent them. It was said of 
Jubal, a great-grandson of Cain, that "he was the father of 
all such as handle the harp and organ." (Gen. 4: 21.) 
David was the first to introduce instrumental music into 
the worship of God, but he was not so commanded. God 
never ordained instruments of music as part of man's wor- 
ship to him. He permitted it among the Jews, but did not 
ordain it. Instrumental music was never in the church of 
God till uninspired men put it there. So it has no divine 
authority to be there. 

(4) We do not understand that it is an unpardonabe sin 
for a Christian to marry a sinner. So he could obtain par- 
don in the same way as for other sins. One good way is 
to convert the sinner, and then both live the Christian life. 
If he cannot be converted, let the Christian be faithful to 
the Lord, and not be led away from Christian integrity. 
But, to be perfectly sure, the better way is not to marry 
a sinner. That is certainly safe. 

(5) The Christian is perfect, in a scriptural sense, when 
he is giving his heart and life to the service of God as re- 
quired in his word. If at any time he finds he has in any 
wise failed in this, let him seek pardon through repentance, 
confession, and prayer. Christ was always perfect in this 
sense, since he did always the things that were pleasing to 
his Father. (John 8: 29.) It is said of him that he was 
made perfect through suffering. This was when he com- 
pleted the suffering his Father appointed for him. He is 
also said to have been made perfect by obedience. This 
was when he had finished the obedience his Father ap- 
pointed for him to do. (See Heb. 2 : 10 ; 5 : 8, 9.) 

SUPPER, WHICH IS MEANT? 

Brother Lipscomb: (1) Is the supper mentioned in John 13: 2-4 
the same supper mentioned in John 12: 2? Did Christ wash his dis- 
ciples' feet in connection with the Lord's Supper or at the eating of 
a common meal? Did Jesus institute the Lord's Supper at the eating 
of the passover? (2) Please explain Matt. 26: 29. What kingdom 
did Jesus have reference to, and how would he "drink it?" 

(1) They were not the same. One was eaten six days 
before the passover, the other was at the passover supper. 
Take the statement of John, and it plainly teaches that this 
supper (John 13: 2) was eaten, the service continued with- 
out intermission until the speeches were made. Jesus and 
the disciples went out from this meeting to the garden, 
where he was arrested and carried to the courts. The foot 
washing was at the beginning of the supper, and I feel sure 
it was done to purify themselves for the supper. "Now 
the passover of the Jews was at hand : and many went up 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 665 

to Jerusalem out of the country before the passover, to pu- 
rify themseves." (John 11: 55.) After purifying them- 
selves, they were liable to have the feet made unclean by 
touching unclean things, and needed to have the feet 
washed, but only the feet. "He that is bathed needeth not 
save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are 
clean, but not all." (John 13: 10.) After being bathed 
for cleansing, they only needed to bathe the feet. Luke 
(22: 24) tells: "There arose also a contention among them, 
which of them was accounted to be greatest." It is likely 
Jesus washed their feet from this quarrel, which may have 
occurred over who should wash the feet. Some of the 
translators throw a little more light on the passage than 
the Common Version. The American Revised Version 
translates John 13: 2: "And during supper, the devil hav- 
ing already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's 
son, to betray him." I copy from Hovey's "Commentary on 
John:" "Noyes translates it: 'And supper being served.' 
Alford: 'And when supper was begun.' Davidson: 'And 
when supper was ready.' Meyer : 'And whilst it is becom- 
ing supper time.' Watkins : 'And it now becoming supper 
time.' Bible Union: 'And supper being served.' English 
Revision: 'And during supper.' Common Version: 'And 
supper being ended.' " I submit that they refer to the 
purification to partake of the passover supper. The feet 
were washed preparatory to the passover. Jesus washed 
the feet of Judas, let it be known he would betray him, sent 
him to do his work ; then instituted after the passover the 
Lord's Supper, partook of it, made the speeches contained 
in John 13-17, went out to the garden of Gethsemane, was 
betrayed by Judas, was carried before the high priest and 
Pilate, and was crucified the next day. There will be no 
occasion to wash the feet to follow this example until the 
passover is observed. 

(2) Matt. 26: 29 is of doubtful meaning. Most com- 
mentators regard it as figurative, and that something pre- 
figured by it will occur in the future state. Some think it 
refers to the establishment of the kingdom and that he 
would observe it with them in the kingdom. I have been 
inclined to the former of the positions. 

SUPPER, EATING THE LORD'S, TWICE ON THE LORD'S 
DAY. 

Brother Sewell: Is it wrong for the children of God to meet twice 
on Lord's day and partake of the Lord's Supper with different congre- 
gations — one meeting in the morning, the other in the evening? 
Please answer through the Gospel Advocate for the benefit of the 
brethren here and elsewhere. 



666 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

There is nothing said directly on this matter in the New 
Testament. But when Christians meet together and take 
the Supper one time, they have certainly filled the require- 
ments of that institution for that day ; and to be certainly 
safe, and not go beyond in any matter pertaining to it, it 
might be best, and would certainly be safe, not to attend to 
it any more till the next Lord's day. In some things we 
see in the word of God it is as dangerous to go beyond the 
word of God as it is to fall short of doing what is required, 
and it is always safe to do just what is commanded — no 
more, no less. 

SUPPER, IS THERE AUTHORITY FOR THE LORD'S, ON 
SATURDAY? 

Brother Sewell: Is it right to take the Lord's Supper on any day 
but the first day of the week? Last Saturday the Methodists had a 
meeting and took something they called the Lord's Supper. It was 
bread and wine. Whether this be the Lord's Supper or not I would 
like to know. There was one of our brethren and one of our sisters 
who took it with them. Is there any command or example in the New 
Testament for taking the Supper any other day but the first day of 
the week? 

It is quite certain that the first day of the week is the 
time the early Christians partook of the Lord's Supper, and 
this they did under the teachings of the inspired apostles 
of the Son of God, which shows that the first day of the 
week is the time the Lord ordained for his people to meet 
and take the Supper; and if they meet and partake of it 
some other day, they do so without authority from the 
Lord, and nothing done by man can honor the Lord unless 
it be done by his authority. The silence of the Bible should 
in all things be regarded, and we should just do what the 
Lord says do, and then all may be one in practice. There 
is no example in all the New Testament for taking the Sup- 
per on any but the first day of the week by the early Chris- 
tians. Neither is there any authority in the word of God 
for taking the Supper once a quarter or once a month, as 
Methodists and others do. So far as we know, there is as 
much authority in the word of God to take the bread and 
wine on Saturday as there is to take it once a quarter ; but 
there is not one word of authority for either one of them in 
the word of God. E. G. S. 

SUPPER, DID JESUS PARTAKE OF THE LORD'S? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In the account of the Lord's Sup- 
per given by Matt. 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, and by Paul' in 1 Cor. 9, is 
it taught that Jesus partook of the bread and wine together with his 
apostles? Or did he only present it to them as his body and blood, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 667 

an institution for his disciples to keep in memory of him, and, there- 
fore, did not partake of it, but only gave it to them? 

There is no positive information on the subject. There 
is an implication in Mark, as well as in Matthew, that he did 
partake. In Mark 14: 25 Jesus says: "Verily I say unto 
you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that 
day that I drink it new in the kingdom of God." Matthew 
has it: "I will not drink henceforth," etc. Henceforth 
means from this time forward. In both these passages the 
implication is that Jesus did eat that time, but would not 
any more do so. But we will not argue it, for there is noth- 
ing practical in the matter, no matter which way we take it. 
He established the Supper, and we have it from his author- 
ity, and that is enough. E. G. S. 

SUPPER, INTOXICATING WINE IN THE LORD'S. 

1. Was the wine used in the last supper by the Savior intoxicating 
or nonintoxicating? 

2. If intoxicating, could the supper be now observed properly by 
the substitution of a nonintoxicant? 

3. Was it an accident that the bread used on the occasion of the 
institution of the supper was unleavened? If not an accident, do 
you think a proper observance can be had now with leavened bread? 

1. I think beyond doubt it was intoxicating. I think 
so because the wine spoken of as generally used was in- 
toxicating. The new wine supposed to have been used on 
the day of Pentecost would make drunk, and that used in 
the Lord's Supper by the Corinthians made drunk. No 
reproof was given for using the wine that does intoxicate. 
Then, again, Timothy clearly, as a matter of conscience, 
refused to use wine because of its evil influences. Paul told 
him to take a little for his frequent sickness. The theory 
that says unfermented juice of the grape was used says this 
is harmless in general use. Timothy did not think the wine 
of that day was harmless ; neither did Paul. It was intox- 
icating, else it could not lead the brother into sin. Good, 
clever people spend time and much research and ingenuity 
in striving to fix up a theory that will banish fermented 
wine from the Lord's table. A few will take the position 
under stress of the evil of intemperance ; but the consensus 
of the learned and the common sense of those who study the 
Bible hold to the idea that it was fermented wine, for only 
fermented wine is free from the leaven or ferment. The 
fermentation works out the ferment. 

2. While I am sure that the fermented juice of the grape 
was used, I am not sure that the presence of the intoxicat- 
ing property is an essential element of the wine to be used. 
It is never called wine in connection with the Supper. The 



668 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

juice of the grape was the thing used, the fruit of the vine 
in the cup. The only practical way of then obtaining it 
free from the presence of leaven or ferment was in the fer- 
mented state. We doubt if there is any other form in 
which it can be obtained yet. We have several times 
thought we had found it; but when tested, it has failed. 
Inasmuch as the fruit of the vine, and not wine, is spoken 
of as the element in the service, if it could be obtained free 
from ferment, I see no objection to its use. But in all 
forms in which it is preserved by exclusion of the air, the 
element of ferment is merely rendered inactive; and the 
moment it is exposed to the air the ferment becomes ac- 
tive, and it must be used hurriedly before the ferment shows 
itself; but the ferment — the leaven — is there and active, 
none the less. So while I could use the unfermented juice 
of the grape could the element of ferment be removed or 
destroyed without passing through the process of fermen- 
tation, still it is impractical, so far as I have been able to 
learn ; and to use it just as Christ and the apostles used it is 
safe. 

3. The new dispensation grew out of the old, as a new 
constitution grows out of a preceding one, and must be in- 
terpreted in the light of the laws of the old. There is no 
doubt but the first supper was served with the unleavened 
bread of the passover. It grew out of the passover. It 
was no more of an accident than it was an accident that the 
first supper was observed at the passover. It is safe to fol- 
low the example given in all things possible. I cannot ap- 
preciate the feeling that would turn from the example 
when it is possible to follow it. Then when leavened 
bread is used, it, I think, universally grows out of a neg- 
lect to prepare any for the supper, and such is used as hap- 
pens to be on hand. We never knew of any one preparing 
leavened bread for the supper. The use of the leavened 
bread grows out of the indifference that neglects to pre- 
pare for the observance of the supper. Let us prepare for 
it, and prepare that concerning which there can be no 
doubt. It is important in all service to God to be on the 
safe side — that about which there can be no doubt. If a 
man will start to always act on this principle, he will never 
wander from God, and all who act on this principle will 
walk together in harmony and peace. Let us all resolve to 
be on the safe side in all religious service. D. L. 

SWEARING. 

A brother asks us for information on the sentence: 
"Swear not at all." We know of no better service toward 
determining this question than to present the use of the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 669 

word translated oath and swear in the New Testament. 
The Greek word horkos is translated oath; omnumi is 
translated swear. They are used in the following sen- 
tences: "Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of 
old time, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform 
unto the Lord thine oaths: but I say unto you, Swear not 
at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne: nor by 
the earth ; for it is his footstool : neither by Jerusalem ; for 
it is the city of the great King. Neither shalt thou swear 
by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or 
black. But let your communication be, Yea, yea ; Nay, nay : 
for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil." (Matt. 
5: 33-37.) Herod "promised with an oath to give her 
whatsoever she would ask." (Matt. 14: 7; see also Mark 
6: 23.) "Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Who- 
soever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but who- 
soever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor ! 
. . . Whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; 
but whosoever sweareth by the gift that is upon it, he is 
guilty. . . . Whoso therefore shall swear by the altar, 
sweareth by it, and by all things thereon. And whoso shall 
swear by the temple, sweareth by it, and by him that 
dwelleth therein. And he that shall swear by heaven, 
sweareth by the throne of God, and by him that sitteth 
thereon." (Matt. 23: 16-22.) "Then began he [Peter] 
to curse and to swear, saying, I know not the man." (Matt. 
26: 74; see also Mark 6: 23.) "To perform the mercy 
promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy cove- 
nant; the oath which he sware to our father Abraham." 
(Luke 1: 72, 73.) "Therefore being a prophet, and know- 
ing that God had sworn with an oath to him [David] , that 
of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would 
raise up Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts 2: 30.) Ste- 
phen speaks of the oath "which God had sworn to Abraham." 
(Acts 7: 17.) "So I sware in my wrath, They shall not 
enter into my rest!" (Heb. 3: 11; see also verse 18; Heb. 
4: 3.) "When God made promise to Abraham, because he 
could swear by no greater, he sware by himself." (Heb. 6 : 
13.) "For men verily swear by the greater: and an oath 
for confirmation is to them an end of all strife." (Heb. 
6: 16.) "For those priests were made without an oath; 
but this with an oath by him that said unto him, The Lord 
sware and will not repent." (Heb. 7: 21.) "But above 
all things, my brethren, swear not, neither by heaven, nei- 
ther by the earth, neither by any other oath: but let your 
yea be yea ; and your nay, nay ; lest ye fall into condemna- 
tion." (James 5: 12.) "The angel which I saw stand 



670 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to 
heaven, and sware by him that liveth forever and ever, 
. . . that there should be time no more." (Rev. 10: 
5, 6.) 

These are the instances in which the terms translated 
oath and swear are used. The same terms apply to the 
oath God took, the oath of the angels, the judicial oath, the 
oath of confirmation, the wicked oath of Herod, the pro- 
fane swearing of Peter, the oath or vow made to the Al- 
mighty. Yet the Savior in the most unlimited way pro- 
hibits his servants from using any oath represented by 
these terms. "I say unto you, Swear not at all." At all 
indicates there is no exception to the prohibition. To con- 
firm it he says: "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; 
Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of 
evil." If this does not prohibit every form and character 
of oath or swearing represented by the words here used in 
these different senses, I do not understand the force of 
language. Swear not at all means to swear not in any 
sense represented by the word sivear. James only reiter- 
ates the Savior's prohibition. "The high priest answered 
and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that 
thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. 
Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said." (Matt. 26 : 63, 64.) 
It is claimed that in this the Savior took an oath. That 
God or the Savior swore does not carry the right to his 
servants to swear, especially as he has so clearly forbid- 
den it to them and limited their statements to the "yea," 
"nay," in contrast with the swearing. But if a judge were 
to say to a witness, "I adjure you, or swear you, to state 
if this or that is true," and he were to plainly alter the 
style of the judge by responding, "I say, judge, your state- 
ment is correct," it would be certainly understood by his 
answering with, "I say," instead of, "I swear," that he 
did not answer under the adjuration or proposed oath; 
but, instead, he would decline the oath and make the state- 
ment simply, "It is true." This is just what the Savior 
did. D. L. 

TABERNACLE, WHAT BECAME OF THE? 

Brother Sewell: Where was the tabernacle last used by the chil- 
dren of Israel, and what became of it? 

The tabernacle and the ark of the covenant were sep- 
arated at the battle of Shiloh, when the ark was carried out 
into the battle between the Jews and Philistines, where it 
was captured by the Philistines. (See 1 Sam. 4.) It re- 
mained among the Philistines for seven months ; but those 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 671 

people were so afflicted on account of its presence that they 
sent it back to the Jewish people again. It was then placed 
in the house of Abinadab, where a priest was placed over it, 
where it remained until David attempted to carry it to Je- 
rusalem on a new cart ; but this effort failed because he did 
not have it carried as God had directed it should be. He 
then placed it in the house of Obed-edom, where it remained 
till David saw and corrected his mistake, and had the chil- 
dren of the Levites to carry it upon their shoulders, as God 
had ordained it should be carried, into the city of Jerusa- 
lem, where it was placed in a tent David had prepared for 
it. Here it remained till Solomon placed it in the temple 
he had built in Jerusalem, where it remained until the Jew- 
ish captivity, when it disappeared from history, possibly 
being carried to Babylon. So it was never returned to its 
old place in the original tabernacle. As to the old taberna- 
cle, history fails to tell what became of it. It was spoken 
of at different places — at Nob and at Gibeon — and finally 
dropped out of sight, and no one knows certainly what be- 
came of it. The Jewish people went so far into sin and so 
far corrupted the worship of God that he abandoned the 
tabernacle, and the ark ceased to defend them, and they 
finally disappeared, and no one knows certainly how. It 
is an awful thing for men to disregard the service of God 
and turn it into something else. Christianity is being ter- 
ribly corrupted that same way. 

TALENTS, PARABLE OF THE. 

Brother Sewell: Kindly explain the parable of the talents found 
in Matt. 25. Most people think that the talents referred to are our 
ability, but the language is: "He gave to every one according to his 
ability." 

"The kingdom of heaven is as a man traveling into a far 
country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto 
them his goods." (Matt. 25: 14.) The parable itself is 
a man who had servants of his own, had money, and was 
arranging for a trip into a far country, and arranged for 
his servants to take charge of his money and to so use it 
as to keep the servants busy and keep his money growing 
in his absence. The word talent relates to money, and 
means a certain weight or amount of money. The man 
gave it to the servants according to their ability to manage 
it and keep it growing. The ability of men to manage 
money and make money out of money differs very widely. 
Hence the man in the parable gave five talents to one serv- 
ant ; to another, two ; and to another, one. This difference 
was not a matter of partiality on the part of the master 
that led him to give more to one than another, but his 



672 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

knowledge of their ability, their capacity to work. Hence, 
one proved to have more than double the capacity of an- 
other, and more than five times that of the one that re- 
ceived one talent. The master did not give ability, but 
gave money according to the ability they had, and simply 
required them to exercise the ability which he knew they 
already had. The man that was going away into a far 
country is intended to represent Christ, who was going to 
leave the earth and return to his Father till the time for 
him to return to judge the world. The talents of money 
that the man gave to his servants to manage till his return 
represent Christ as leaving the whole matter of the king- 
dom of heaven, the gospel plan of salvation, in the hands 
of his disciples, for them to propagate to the ends of the 
earth, to spread or increase that kingdom, with all its de- 
mands and responsibilities, till time should end. This 
means that every disciple of Christ is to do what he can in 
the work and worship of the church, do all that he can in 
living the Christian life and all that he can to aid in the sal- 
vation of others, as the gospel directs. As it was with the 
servants and the talents, so it is with the disciples of Christ 
in the work of salvation. Some members can do much, 
while others can do but little. But it is the duty of all to 
do all they can. Some preachers can evangelize success- 
fully and lead many into the church, but cannot very suc- 
cessfully edify those that are already in; others can very 
successfully edify the church ; while still others are not a 
success at either one. Some members that could not make 
a success in preaching can make good overseers, good lead- 
ers both in the work and worship of the church. There is 
always something all can do that have responsibility enough 
to be Christians. The great virtue in the whole matter is 
for each one to do what he can in the Lord's cause, and his 
joy in eternity will be complete. The trouble with the man 
with one talent was not because he did not make two or five 
talents, but because he hid his lord's money and did nothing. 
He did nothing in the world to extend his lord's interests. 

TARES, THE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please explain who the tares rep- 
resent in the parable. (Matt. 13: 24-30.) Do they represent char- 
acters in the church or that ever were in it? 

The tares are the wicked people of this world. We 
would not undertake to say dogmatically whether they rep- 
resent wicked people who claim to be in the church or out 
of it. We think both. Wicked people who from some 
worldly motive go through the form of coming into the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 673 

church are no more in the kingdom of God than other 
wicked people who make no such pretensions; and even 
those who come in, and then live wickedly, will share the 
same fate with other wicked people in the end. Wicked 
people are led by the devil even when they go through the 
form of coming into the church or when they live wickedly 
after coming in. Therefore we think it matters but little 
whether we refer the tares to the wicked nominally in the 
church or out of it, so far as that one point is concerned. 
We know as an argument in favor of the tares representing 
the wicked in the church the part of the Savior's explana- 
tion of the parable which says, "The Son of man shall send 
forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom 
all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; and 
shall cast them into a furnace of fire : there shall be wailing 
and gnashing of teeth," is quoted. The meaning, however, 
depends very much upon the meaning we attach to the word 
kingdom. • If it means necessarily the church, then those 
who make such claim are doubtless correct — that is, if it 
means the church as an organized body. But is this neces- 
sarily so ? The word kingdom may mean dominion, and the 
dominion of Christ in a general sense extends over all the 
earth, whether people serve him or not ; and in the last day 
all the wicked in all the dominion of Christ and of God will 
be cast into the furnace of fire, where will be weeping and 
gnashing of teeth, whether in the church or out, nominally. 
Again, the church of God is composed of his people, and his 
people are scattered about over the world generally ; and to 
send the angels and gather the wicked from among these 
would be virtually to gather them out of the kingdom. But, 
again, the Savior says the field in which both the good and 
the bad seed is sown, both the righteous and the wicked, is 
the world, which we understand to be the territory of the 
earth, in which all, the righteous and the wicked, live to- 
gether in this life, and will to the end of the world. We do 
not so understand the Scriptures as to think they teach 
that there will ever come a time when all the people of the 
world will be Christians; but there will be some righteous 
and some wicked when the end comes, and all the wicked 
will be cast out. And, therefore, when the Master is rep- 
resented as saying to the servants not to try to take up the 
tares, lest they root up also the wheat, we understand the 
Savior to teach his people that it is no part of their busi- 
ness to try to blot out the wicked from the face of the 
earth, but to let them alone and live among them on the 
earth till the end, so that they may have a chance to influ- 



674 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ence them for good, and that the Lord at the last day will 
do the destroying. 

Still further, if we make the field mean the church only, 
then the parable would forbid any discipline or any sepa- 
rating the wicked members from the church in this world, 
as some have contended. But that interpretation would 
contradict many plain directions given by Paul to the 
churches, in which he required them to withdraw from 
every unruly or disorderly member. The word of God 
must not be so interpreted as to make any one passage con- 
tradict another. So we conclude that the tares in this par- 
able means all the wicked, rebellious people of this world, 
whether nominally in the church or out of it, who reject 
God and follow Satan, all of whom will be cast into outer 
darkness at the last day ; and this interpretation, so far as 
we can see, harmonizes with all other passages in the Bible 
on the same subject. We, therefore, regard it safe. 

E. G. S. 

TEACHING IN CLASSES. 

Brother Lipscomb: A goodly number of the members of our con- 
gregation worshiping here say it is contrary to divine teaching to 
teach the children at church, as in classes. Please give me some light 
on this subject. 

God says: "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." 
(Matt. 28: 19.) "Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
gospel to every creature." (Mark 16: 15.) "They that 
were scattered abroad went everywhere preaching the 
word." (Acts 8: 4.) "Preach the word; be instant in 
season, out of season ; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long- 
suffering and doctrine [teaching]." (2 Tim. 4:2.) In all 
these God gives the command to preach and teach the word, 
in all places, at all times, in all manners, to every creature 
capable of being taught. God gives the positive command 
to go anywhere, to teach at all times, to everybody willing 
to be taught. A Christian that refuses to teach anywhere, 
anybody, in any way it is possible to teach, refuses to obey 
God and sets his authority at defiance. It is not only the 
privilege, but the duty, of every Christian to teach the chil- 
dren and every one else on Sunday in classes, and every 
other time, place, or way it is possible to teach the word of 
God. None can refuse to teach anybody anywhere with- 
out disobeying a clear command of God. In all this the 
Christian rules regulating the proprieties of men and 
women, the young and the old, should be observed. Ask 
those who oppose to point out what scripture is set aside 
by thus teaching the word of God. Every one who refuses 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 675 

to teach the word of God at any time, in any place, to any- 
body willing to be taught, does disobey the plain and posi- 
tive command of God. Let us look this command squarely 
in the face and not shirk our duty. 

TEACHING AND THE SUPPER, WHICH FIRST? 

Brother Lipscomb: Some congregations of the church of Christ at- 
tend to the communion service before preaching, and refer to Acts 20 : 
7 to support their practice; while others have the service after the 
sermon, and point to Matt. 26 : 30 to prove their position. Which is 
right? 

I do not think either scripture referred to has any bear- 
ing on the point at issue. Acts 20: 7 says the disciples 
came together on the first day of the week to break bread. 
This would indicate that a leading purpose in coming to- 
gether was to break bread ; but it gives no intimation 
whether it was the first service attended to when they came 
together or the last. Matt. 26 : 30, after the institution or 
observance of the Supper has been told, says : "And when 
they had sung a hymn, they went out into the mount of 
Olives." Reading the succeeding , verses shows that this 
was the night of the betrayal. They went to Gethsemane, 
and Jesus told them to remain while "I go yonder and 
pray." He went and prayed three times, and then returned 
to his disciples and told them his time was at hand. "While 
he yet spake," Judas, with his band, came and arrested him. 
Mark (14: 22-26) gives the account. And they came to 
Gethsemane, and straightway cometh Judas and his band, 
and arrested him. In Luke 22: 14-23 the cup is partaken 
of, and while at the table a contention arose among them 
which should be greatest. (Verse 24.) He talked to them 
of the kings of the Gentiles, of who is greatest, of his ap- 
pointing them a kingdom (verses 28-30), told Peter that 
he would deny him (verses 31-33), and that henceforth 
they should each carry his wallet and purse and should buy 
a sword ; two swords were brought to him ; and after this he 
went out to the mount of Olives, where he was betrayed 
(verse 39). John 13 tells of the Supper, or, if you wish to 
so call it, of a supper. At this supper the feet were washed, 
the traitor was pointed out. Verse 30 : "Having received 
the sop went immediately out." After he had gone, Jesus 
talked to those who remained. Nothing is told by John of 
the Lord's Supper, but he spoke to them through chapters 
13, 14, 15, 16. In chapter 17 he prayed for his disciples, 
and the first verses of chapter 18 tell of his going over the 
brook Kidron and of his arrest by Judas and his band. 
The supper told of by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 
ended with his arrest by Judas. It must, then, have been 



676 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

one and the same supper; and taking all the accounts to- 
gether, they show that all that is recorded by Luke and by 
John in chapters 14, 15, 16, and 17 was spoken after the 
supper and before they went out. 

This proves there is no command of a special order in 
the observance of the Supper. I think any one who at- 
tempts to enforce a special order adds to the order of God. 
When God wishes a special order observed, he does not leave 
any doubt as to it. He does not leave it to human infer- 
ence and human reasoning. If there is an order, Acts 2: 
42 would indicate it was first teaching, fellowship, break- 
ing of bread, and after this prayers. But the whole facts 
indicate the order of doing the things that constitute the 
worship is not a matter of divine legislation. While this 
is true, I prefer the Supper should come after the preach- 
ing, possibly because I have been accustomed to it, and the 
brethren generally have, and it is not wise to break up es- 
tablished customs unless there is good to come of it. In 
attending to the Supper we are commanded to ' 'tarry one 
for another/' That means to wait until all are present. 
I have never seen it attended to in the beginning of the 
service without some coming late, and so necessitate carry- 
ing the memorials to them after the others had partaken, 
or they would go without. While I think there is no di- 
vinely established order, it is better, with the habits of our 
people, to observe the Supper after the preaching, when 
teaching is regularly done. D. L. 

TEACHING THE BIBLE, NUMEROUS QUESTIONS ON. 

Brother Sewell: If you were affiliating with a congregation whose 
order of worship was as here given — (1) assemble at 10 A.M. on 
Lord's day; (2) all join in singing a song; (3) some brother reads 
the Scripture lesson; (4) kneeling, some brother leads in prayer; (5) 
all join in singing another song; (6) the audience is then divided into 
classes agreeable to age and ability to recite a lesson, using the liter- 
ature published by the McQuiddy Printing Company; (7) at 11 
o'clock the lesson ceases; (8) all then join in singing one or more 
songs;- (9) some brother reads a second lesson; (10) kneeling, some 
brother leads in prayer; (11) all join in another song; (12) one or 
more talks by the elders; (13) partaking of the communion; (14) 
attending to the contribution; (15) another song; (16) pronouncing 
the benediction — and if a part of the congregation should file objec- 
tions to the first seven items, or, to be more specific, should demand 
(1) that all literature, except the sacred text, be discarded; (2) that 
there be no separate classes for the study of the lessons; (3) that no 
sister be allowed to teach a class of children; and (4) that the church 
teach no children on Lord's day at all, declaring that they would leave 
the church unless their demands were granted — under such condi- 
tions, what course would you take, and why would you take that 
course? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 677 

Why people should object to any method of teaching the 
word of God that is orderly and decent, I am unable to see. 
There is no specific method of teaching laid down in the 
word of God. Jesus was the greatest teacher ever on this 
earth, and we are told that we must follow his steps. In 
doing this we must follow his manner of teaching. He 
taught in the synagogues, in the temple, in the home, at 
the seaside, on the mountain, in the plain, by the wayside ; 
anywhere and at any time he met with people that would 
listen, he taught them. Thus he fully utilized all opportu- 
nities that opened up before him. Christians that walk in 
his steps will do likewise. Paul taught ''publicly, and 
from house to house." He commanded Timothy to preach 
the word and to be "urgent in season, out of season." To 
preach the word of God is to teach it, to be urgent in it. 
(2 Tim. 4:2.) This means that he should embrace every 
opportunity. 

Christians are not tied down to fixed methods or places 
in their work of teaching, but should utilize all opportuni- 
ties. The first day of the week, before or after the regular 
worship of the church, affords splendid opportunities for 
teaching the word of God both to children and to young 
people, or to anybody, young or old, that will attend and 
learn. To follow the example of Jesus would compel Chris- 
tians to utilize such precious opportunities for that purpose. 
To refuse such opportunities is to refuse to walk in the 
steps of Jesus and to refuse to obey the above command of 
Paul. To refuse the teaching of the word of God in such 
favorable opportunities is to stand in the way of sinners, to 
hinder teaching and learning the word, the will of God. It 
would be difficult to picture out a greater wrong than to 
hinder, to prevent, teaching the word of God to children 
and others on the first day of the week. To any way pre- 
vent the doing of what the word of God requires to be done 
is to openly rebel against God by refusing to do as he re- 
quires. It is true that God requires parents to bring up 
their children "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." 
This means that they shall teach them at home and also 
utilize all other opportunities to teach them and to have 
them taught the word of God on the first day of the week. 
To forbid the teaching of children on the first day of the 
week would be to forbid preaching on that day, or else keep 
the children away on that day; for preaching is teaching, 
and to prevent children being taught in connection with the 
Lord's-day service would either prevent preaching that day 
or would keep the children away. So to prevent the teach- 
ing of children on the first day of the week will leave them 



678 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

to run wild, go their own way, by leaving them at home. 
To knock out the preaching on that day would be to kill an 
example of the inspired apostle Paul, who preached at 
Troas in connection with breaking bread on the first day of 
the week. 

To forbid the use of literature in which the Scripture 
lesson to be taught and learned is given, and the lesson ex- 
plained by some one that understands and that can rightly 
divide and apply the word of God, is precisely the same as 
to forbid preaching or in any way teaching the word of God 
on that day. People do not realize what they are doing 
when they forbid teaching the word of God to children or 
any one else on the Lord's day. Who can show any differ- 
ence in principle between teaching the word of God through 
literature and teaching or proclaiming it by word of mouth 
from the pulpit? Such objectors are like the scribes and 
Pharisees, who shut up the kingdom of heaven in the days 
of the Savior and would neither go in themselves nor per- 
mit others to go in. (Matt. 23 : 13.) ' "Do all things with- 
out murmuring and disputings." (Phil. 2: 14.) Those 
who object to doing what God says do on all opportunities 
that are open before them are opposing and destroying the 
work of God instead of carrying it out, are placing them- 
selves against God, are pulling down his work instead of 
building it up. Children that attend and are taught the 
word of the Lord on the first day of the week are much 
more likely to come into the church as they grow up than 
those who do not. So by hindering this work the salvation 
of souls is hindered, which is an exceedingly dangerous 
work. Objectors to such are heavy weights on the wheels 
of Ziom Men had just as well object to reading and ex- 
plaining the Bible itself as to object to reading a lesson at 
a time and the explanations as given, showing the meaning 
of the lesson and its relations to other passages. Paul's 
letter to the Colossians was but a tiny part of the New Tes- 
tament, but in it he said to them: "And when this epistle 
hath been read among you, cause that it be read also in the 
church of the Laodiceans ; and that ye also read the epistle 
from Laodicea." (Col. 4: 16.) Since it was right in the 
days of. Paul to send the Bible round in parts and have it 
read in parts, why is it not right to have it in lessons, one 
at a time, now ? 

As to what I would do in such cases would depend in part 
upon the character, advancement, and standing of the ob- 
jectors. But I would advise that in any case due patience 
and forbearance be exercised toward them, and that they be 
patiently taught and admonished not to enact laws by their 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 679 

opinions that set aside plain passages and examples of the 
word of God. If they will not yield to take any part in or 
to be present when such lessons are taught and studied, it 
would certainly be better for them not to go on Lord's day 
till the lessons are through and the time for the worship 
has come, and all worship together, than that they should 
create disturbance in the church. This is often done and 
no open rupture made. Every reasonable and scriptural 
effort should be made to settle all such differences rather 
than cause separation. The objectors would not be harmed 
by so doing, and the church might worship together in 
peace. If anything beyond this should ever be necessary, 
then conditions and conduct and the light of God's word 
will indicate to the church what else should be done. 

As to women teaching in classes, each class to itself, that 
is about as private as when Priscilla and Aquila taught 
Apollos the right way. To teach thus in classes is not the 
sort of teaching Paul forbids women to do. 

"TEACHING IN SONGS," HOW? 

Brother Lipscomb: In Col. 3: 16 Paul speaks of teaching, etc., in 
songs. Is the teaching indicated to be the expression or pronunci- 
ation of the words in the song in such a way as to be understood by 
the listener (not himself engaged in the singing) before singing is 
acceptable worship? From what Greek words are the terms teach 
and admonish? Do they signify that teaching can be done without 
words heard and understood, or that melody inspires and elevates us, 
thus teaching us? 

The word translated teaching is didaskontes, active par- 
ticiple from didabco — to teach. The word is used in Matt. 
4 : 23 : " Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their syn- 
agogues." Matt. 5:2: "He opened his mouth, and taught 
them." Matt. 5 : 19 : "Whosoever shall do and teach them." 
Matt. 7 : 29 : "He taught them as one having authority/' 
Matt. 11: 1: "To teach and to preach in their cities." 
There are many such passages, possibly a hundred, in which 
the teacher teaches others by speaking to them. 

The word translated admonish is nouthetountes , parti- 
ciple from noutheteo, and is used in such passages as Acts 
20: 31: "I ceased not to warn every one." Rom. 15: 14: 
"Able also to admonish one another." 1 Cor. 4: 14: "But 
as my beloved sons I warn you," etc. It means that others 
are to be admonished by the words spoken in song, so must 
be heard and understood that this may be done. More 
music than the song carrying the words hinders the end of 
singing, teaching, and admonishing. 



680 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

TEMPTING CHRIST. 

In 1 Cor. 10: 9 we have this language from Paul: "Neither let us 
tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of 
serpents." Please explain how Paul and his Corinthian brethren 
could tempt Christ. 

When the New Testament speaks of men tempting Christ, 
it does not mean that they lay inducements before him to 
do wrong, as in cases when men are tempted to sin, be- 
cause men cannot tempt him to do wrong; but when used 
with reference to Christ, to God, it means to try, to "put 
to the proof," to see how far he will suffer us to disregard 
his authority and not cast us off forever. We can tempt 
men to sin, to do wrong, but not Christ. The word tempt, 
therefore, in the above passage is almost in the sense of 
provoke, by setting aside his divine commands, by turning 
aside from them little by little, till his anger is kindled 
against us forever. This is truly a dangerous experiment 
for Christians. There is danger that we may so tempt, or 
provoke, the Lord that he may cast us off forever. This is 
just what the Jewish people did. They sinned little by lit- 
tle until the Lord numbered ten sins against them and shut 
them out of the promised land. Let us as Christians be 
careful that we do not put him to the proof, provoke him 
by disregarding his will, lest we be condemned eternally. 

TEMPTATION, MEANING OF "LEAD US NOT INTO." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please inform me through your 
interesting and instructive paper why it was necessary to put in the 
Lord's prayer, "Lead us not into temptation," when in James 1: 13 
it says: "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: 
for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." 

We understand from the prayer that Jesus taught his 
disciples to use that the true meaning is that God would en- 
able them to avoid temptation, though the form of words is 
not such as to convey exactly that idea, except as modified 
by other passages on the same subject. We think the fol- 
lowing is an explanation of it: "Watch and pray, that ye 
enter not into temptation: the spirit indeed is willing, but 
the flesh is weak." (Matt. 26: 41.) Here the language 
is, 'Tray, that ye enter not into temptation ;" and this we 
understand to be an explanation of the other. From this 
passage in James, where it says God does not tempt any 
man, we understand that God never lays any temptation or 
inducement before any man with the design to induce him 
to do evil. The devil is the one that tempts us to do evil. 
God suffers us to be tried, that by the trial we may be 
strengthened ; and hence he says : "Knowing this, that the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 681 

trying of your faith worketh patience." (James 1: 3.) 
God tried Abraham, and the trial worked patience, devel- 
oped his strength, his faith, his trust in God. So Peter 
says : 'Think it not strange concerning the fiery trial which 
is to try you, as though some strange thing happened unto 
you." (1 Pet. 4: 12.) God suffers his children to be tried 
for their good, but never tempts them to evil. E. G. S. 

"TENTH," ONE, TO THE LORD. 

Brother Lipscomb : I see that you dwell considerably on giving the 
tenth that we make to the Lord in your article on "Offerings to the 
Lord," and cite to us a number of passages of scripture in the Old 
Testament to prove it. Now, do you believe under the Christian dis- 
pensation that we are required to give the tenth that we make to the 
cause of Christ? And, again, do you believe that any part of the Old 
Scriptures are binding on persons of the present day? Where do 
you get authority for giving the tenth of our income to the Lord, 
outside of the Old Bible? Please answer. 

When we dissever and dissociate the teachings of the 
New Testament and those of the Old, we disjoin what God 
has joined. He has given the two as successive and united 
developments to man. No man from the Old Testament 
can ever learn the full and perfect lesson that God has con- 
veyed to man. Neither if he takes the New Testament 
alone can he ever fully appreciate the will of God as re- 
vealed to man and his dealings with man. They are com- 
plements one of the other, and as necessary to each other as 
the two blades of a pair of shears. 

We believe that there is not an example nor a circum- 
stance nor a principle related in the Old Testament but that 
it is intended to bear a lesson of instruction and wisdom to 
us. Many things were done by God in his dealings with 
the Jews that are not recorded, even as the Savior did many 
things not recorded ; but those recorded are ensamples to 
us. They are for our instruction, our guidance, to teach 
us how we should walk before God acceptably and well 
pleasing to him. The specific commands of the Old Testa- 
ment are not binding on us, save as reiterated in the New ; 
but the lessons are for our instruction, the principles are 
for our guidance. If it were not so, Christ and the apos- 
tles would not have so constantly appealed to the Old Tes- 
tament Scriptures, to the lessons that they taught, to the 
promises made. They continually refer to the promises 
made under the Old Testament as grounds for our hoping 
for blessings — temporal blessings, too, under the new dis- 
pensation. 

We are taught in the Old Testament how God applies his 
laws; in the New Testament the perfect laws are given. 



682 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

We stated clearly that no specific amount was defined by- 
statute in the New Testament, but the tithe of the Old Tes- 
tament is continually referred to as the example for Chris- 
tians under the New. We do not see how this could be un- 
less it had some degree of application to us. Again, we are 
told that we must lay up treasures in heaven. We must so 
use the unrighteous mammon that we may make friends 
that will receive us into their everlasting habitations. We 
are to give, hoping for nothing in return. Christians are 
told to lay by them in store as God has prospered them. 
Take these commands, and does not every one see an in- 
definiteness in reference to them ? What part of our earn- 
ings shall we give? "For if there be first a willing mind, 
it is accepted according to that a man hath, and not accord- 
ing to that he hath not." "He which soweth sparingly 
shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully 
shall reap also bountifully." Now, God is to be the judge 
as to whether our sowing is sparing or bountiful. We 
would like to know how he regards it that we may conform 
to his will. How shall we do it? There is but one way 
known to us. Go to the Old Testament and see what he 
expected of the Jews when less blessed than we are. He 
cannot require of us less than he did of them. Indeed, the 
Scripture abounds with clear intimations that he expects 
much more of us than he did of them. He demands of us 
our all if his honor or the good of man requires it. The 
young man was required to give up all; the widow with 
two mites that gave her all was especially commended of 
God. 

Now, what constitutes bountiful giving in the Lord's es- 
teem? We cannot leave any one to determine for himself 
what is liberal ; at least, we cannot expect God to adopt 
each man's standard as his rule by which to judge us. The 
stingiest man feels that he is remarkably liberal. The 
liberal-hearted man, after doing all he can, feels he has 
done but little. He does not feel that he has been liberal. 
God has a standard by which he will judge us. Where can 
we learn that standard? We go to the Old Testament and 
find what he required of the Jews. We ought to do im- 
measurably more ; we dare not hope for divine favor while 
doing less. If they escaped not who refused to hear him 
who spoke on earth, much more shall not we escape if we 
refuse to hear him who spoke from heaven. When we wish 
to hear what obedience to God is and what are our obliga- 
tions to follow his law, we go to Abraham's offering Isaac, 
to Saul's sparing the sheep and the oxen when he was com- 
manded to slay, and other examples from the Old Testa- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 683 

ment, to learn it. When we wish to learn what God es- 
teems liberal among his children, we go to see what he re- 
quired of Abraham and Isaac and of the Jewish nation, and 
we learn that he has done more for us and requires us to do 
more for him. Certainly the legitimacy of this conclusion 
is clear to all. We think much more than one-tenth of the 
income is demanded of the Christian to be devoted to the 
interest of God and the good of man. We think one-tenth 
the least a man ought to allow himself to think of. God 
has certainly given us good reason to know he will not be 
pleased with less. D. L. 

THANKS BEFORE EATING. 

Is it not the duty of all Christians to return thanks before eating? 

The Savior gave thanks before eating. "And he com- 
manded the people to sit down on the ground : and he took 
the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to 
his disciples to set before them." (Mark 8:6; see also 
Matt. 15: 36.) "They did eat bread, after that the Lord 
had given thanks." (See John 6: 11, 23.) Paul, during 
the shipwreck voyage, "took bread, and gave thanks to God 
in the presence of them all: and when he had broken it, 
he began to eat." (Acts 27: 35.) Paul, speaking of eat- 
ing meat or not eating, says : "He that eateth, eateth to the 
Lord, for he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to 
the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks." (Rom. 
14: 6.) This shows that thanksgiving was connected with 
eating as a custom among Christians. Paul, speaking of 
some who forbid the use of meats, says: "Every creature 
of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received 
with thanksgiving." (1 Tim. 4: 4.) From these scrip- 
tures and others that might be given we certainly think 
every Christian ought to give thanks before eating. 

THEATERS, GOING TO. 

Do you think it right for Christians to go to the theater? My 
father, who is quite an old man now, as you know, thinks it is not any 
harm to go occasionally and to the best plays. I hope you will an- 
swer fully. I know the subject has been handled; but a father has 
influence over a child, and what he thinks right the child is very sure 
to think right. I want you to write exactly what you believe, as I 
would like to go to see some of Shakespeare's plays. 

We have no doubt there are plays and occasions when a 
wise and discriminating individual might be benefited by 
attending certain performances at a theater. The acting 
itself might suggest things that would greatly help a 
preacher in his work. A preacher once asked an actor 



684 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

why people were deeply interested in his acting, when they 
knew it was fiction and all feigned, and were so little inter- 
ested in his preaching, when they knew he was sincere and 
his statements true. The response was : "I speak fiction as 
though I believe it true; you tell the truth as though you 
believe it fiction." There is a great deal in this. If preach- 
ers would study to tell the truth in an earnest and impres- 
sive way, showing they realized and felt the importance 
and power of the truth, it would add greatly to its effect. 
An observing man would catch many helpful suggestions 
from a good actor. Then in some plays there are truths 
that have a beneficial influence. It would be a sad and 
terrible institution that has no good in it. No man is 
wholly good or bad ; none of his work is wholly evil or good. 
No human institutions are unmixed good or unmixed evil. 
No books are so but the Bible. Yet because a thing has 
some good in.it, it does not justify a man in using it. 

A saloon has some good about it. It is a good place to 
study human nature. Many practical lessons that would 
help a preacher could be learned there as nowhere else. 
Sometimes, too, a preacher or a Christian might be helped 
by a glass of wine from a saloon ; but the case ought to be 
very extreme that would justify a Christian man to go into 
a saloon. 

But the general character of the theater is evil, and has 
been for three thousand years. Its appeal is to the lower 
and fleshly element of man's nature. Every man has a 
higher and a lower element, a spiritual and a fleshly ele- 
ment. The theater, in its best, is an appeal to and an ex- 
citement of the lower, the fleshly element. When a man 
finds a grain of good, much evil influence abounds. The 
best man, with his mind brought under the baser elements, 
is to that extent injured spiritually. But it is possible that 
as Paul could eat meat offered to an idol without conscience 
of the idol, and so without sin, so it is possible for a Chris- 
tian well established in the faith and his flesh well kept 
under to attend a theater without being himself defiled ; 
yet as Paul could not eat the flesh offered to the idol without 
danger of leading his weak brethren into influences that 
might lead them into idolatry, so defile their consciences, so 
this strong Christian could not attend the theater without 
leading weaker Christians who could not discriminate be- 
tween the good and bad into that which would demoralize 
and corrupt them, defile their consciences, and lead them 
into sin. When we so sin against our weak brethren and 
wound their consciences, we sin against God. To wound 
their consciences is not to hurt their feelings, but to lead 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 685 

them by our example to lower the standard for their con- 
sciences, to violate their consciences and be led into sin. 

The theater has been in its influences for three thousand 
years on the side of vice, an excitement and feeder of the 
fleshly lusts, and has dragged men down. Its tendency is 
in the same direction yet. An occasional good play has an 
influence to commend it, give it influence, bring a respecta- 
ble class of people under its influence that the evil influ- 
ences may work their ruin. Then a strong Christian may 
go to the theater on occasions when good actors and plays 
are presented. A weak Christian fails to discriminate be- 
tween the good and the evil, and is encouraged by the exam- 
ple of the strong Christian to attend the theater, and falls 
under its evil influence. You may ask : "Is my liberty to be 
restrained and measured by the weak conscience of an- 
other ?" That is just what Paul decided must be done. 

Christ suffered and died that we might live. We must 
be willing to deny ourselves privileges and gratifications 
that our weak fellow men may be blessed. "Destroy not 
him with thy meat, for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14: 
15.) "For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit 
at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him 
which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are 
offered to idols ; and through thy knowledge shall the weak 
brother perish, for whom Christ died ? But when ye sin so 
against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye 
sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother 
to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I 
make my brother to offend." (1 Cor. 8 : 10-13.) 

Any practice the general results of which are evil should 
be avoided. Any. action or practice that leads others not 
strong or discriminating into influences that injure, demor- 
alize, and ruin them should be carefully avoided. The ac- 
tor, Booth, has said that he would be unwilling for his wife 
and children to attend a theater unless he knew both the 
actor and the plays to be performed. The elder Booth un- 
dertook to establish a moral theater in New York. It com- 
pletely failed. The theater has always had an immoral ten- 
dency. We never knew a habitual theatergoer a zealous, 
earnest church worker. A Christian should not counte- 
nance it by even an occasional visit to the better perform- 
ances. It encourages others to go habitually to the lower 
ones. We lead them to sin and ruin. "Take heed lest by 
any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block 
to them that are weak." (1 Cor. 8: 9.) D. L. 



686 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

THIEF ON THE CROSS AND PARADISE, THE. 

Will you please give your views concerning the salvation of the 
thief on the cross? Do you think after Christ had begun a good work 
on the thief he would not finish it? Also please give the meaning of 
the word paradise. Does it mean heaven or a place of rest after 
death until the judgment? 

I know very little about the salvation of the thief. It is 
a matter of uncertainty, at best, as to what the thief asked 
for. His language was: "Lord, remember me when thou 
comest into thy kingdom. " Now, what kingdom did the 
thief have in his mind when he asked this question? Did 
he mean the spiritual kingdom of Christ? If he did, how 
did he get his information? The disciples themselves, who 
were with the Savior from the beginning of his public min- 
istry, did not understand what sort of a kingdom Christ 
had come to establish until after he had ascended to heaven ; 
for just before his ascension they said to him, "Lord, wilt 
thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?" 
showing that up to this time they thought he had come to 
establish an earthly kingdom, like that of David. If, there- 
fore, the thief understood that Christ would establish a 
spiritual kingdom, involving salvation through his blood, 
then the thief, though a wild marauder, who had perhaps 
never heard one discourse from the Savior in his life, un- 
derstood more about his mission than his own disciples, 
who had heard his teaching regularly for three years and 
a half. This, to my mind, is most unreasonable. If he did 
understand it, it must have been specially revealed to him 
by miraculous power; and there is no hint or intimation 
of such a thing in the New Testament. In fact, God has 
never made such revelation to any man for his personal 
salvation. 

It will be very difficult, therefore, for any one to show 
that the thief knew anything of salvation from sin through 
Christ ; and if he did not know anything about such salva- 
tion, how would he know how to ask for it? But, on the 
other hand, if he only had the idea that even the disciples 
had at that time, then he thought Christ would yet come 
down from the cross and by mighty power enter upon his 
personal reign — enter into his earthly kingdom. In that 
case he doubtless thought the Savior might save him from 
death ; and who knows but that this is what he asked for ? 
If so, and the Savior answered according to his question, 
then the answer only meant that the thief would certainly 
die. 

The Greek word rendered paradise (or, rather, trans- 
ferred) originally meant a garden or park, and may have 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 687 

had its original meaning here. Later, however, the word 
came to signify a place of joy in the unseen world; and 
this is what most people suppose is meant in the above pas- 
sage, and that it means the thief would be saved in heaven. 

I do not think proper to argue either side of this matter. 
If the thief was saved from sin that day, the whole thing 
was miraculous, and none can be saved that way now. 
This took place before the gospel dispensation was estab- 
lished, and we cannot go back to that order of things and 
be saved that way now. We have to be saved by the last 
commission that says, "He that believeth and is baptized 
shall be saved;" and no soul of man can be saved like the 
thief was, if saved at all ; and so it is no use to bother about 
the thief. Our interest is to learn how we can be saved 
through Christ, since he died and rose again. 

But the question is also asked : "Do you think after Christ 
had begun a good work on the thief he would not finish it?" 
If the Savior had begun any good work on the thief, I do 
not know what it was. The word of the Lord says noth- 
ing about his ever having begun a good work on the thief ; 
and if he never began such a work, how could he finish 
what he never began? Perhaps the idea of the inquirer is 
that Christ had been working on the thief by some direct 
or immediate work of the Holy Spirit. But, then, the word 
of God does not give one instance of such a work as that, 
upon the thief or any one else ; hence, I cannot tell anything 
about that matter. E. G. S. 

THIEF'S LANGUAGE A QUESTION, IS THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Is it a question asked or a prom- 
ise given in Luke 23: 43: "To-day shalt thou be with me in paradise?" 

According to the Greek, the passage is a plain, positive 
statement, with no indication of being a question. Whether 
it amounts to a promise of happiness to the thief, or 
whether it is a mere statement that he should go into the 
unseen world that day, depends upon the meaning that 
may be attached to the word paradise. If the Savior meant 
by that word a place of rest or happiness, then it was a 
promise; but if the word only meant in this passage the 
land of the dead, the grave, as some believe, then it is not a 
promise in the true sense of that word, but a kind of pro- 
phetic statement of his certain doom — that he should die. 
We do not propose to decide which the Savior meant at 
present. 



688 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

"THIRD HEAVEN," PURPOSE OF PAUL'S VISION IN. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Will you please give us a short 
comment in the Gospel Advocate on 2 Cor. 12: 2-5? I believe it is 
generally conceded that the man spoken of was the apostle himself. 
Now, the difficulty with me is: All the miracles performed by Christ 
and the apostles were, unlike the wonders of magicians and sooth- 
sayers, for some purpose. What purpose was effected by Paul's being 
caught up to the third heaven? It did not give the church or man- 
kind any revelation, for the words which he heard there were not 
lawful for a man to utter. 

We cannot tell with any degree of certainty what was the 
object of granting the vision to Paul. It was a wonderful 
vision, or trance. He could not tell exactly himself the 
condition of circumstances of the vision. He was trans- 
ported to the third heaven — whether in the flesh or out of it, 
he could not tell — and saw wonders and heard truths, some 
of which were not lawful to be told. While he might not 
reveal the secrets of that state of bliss, yet the knowledge 
might be of great service to him in giving him zeal, earnest- 
ness, and devotion in the work, knowing the glories that 
were in store for him in that blessed state. The fact that 
we do not know the object for which God does a thing is no 
evidence that he did not have a wise purpose in doing it. 
We think likely Paul at this time received increased meas- 
ures of the Spirit, saw Jesus, and became more completely 
qualified and fully endowed for the apostolic work. D. L. 

"THORN IN THE FLESH," PAUL'S. 

Please explain through the Gospel Advocate what Paul's thorn in 
the flesh was in 2 Cor. 12 : 7. 

I have sometimes thought myself I would be right glad 
to know what Paul's thorn in the flesh was ; but I have long 
since decided that I can never know, and have now de- 
cided that secret, unrevealed things belong to the Lord, 
while only revealed things belong to us. And as it has not 
been revealed what this was, I leave it with the Lord, being 
assured it would not profit me if I did know. Some say it 
was sore eyes; but the Bible does not say so, and I do not 
know, and, therefore, cannot tell. E. G. S. 

TIME REFERRED TO IN HEB. 8: 10, 11 AND 1 COR. 2: 9. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Heb. 8: 10, 11. When will 
the time come that we "shall not teach every man his neighbor, and 
every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord?" When shall all 
know the Lord, "from the least to the greatest?" (2) Also please 
explain 1 Cor. 2: 9. When will ear hear of "the things which God 
hath prepared for them that love him?" 

(1) That time has already come. It was ushered in 
when the new covenant, the gospel dispensation, was es- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 689 

tablished. In the Jewish dispensation children entered that 
covenant by natural birth, and had to be taught a knowl- 
edge of God after they had entered. In the gospel dispen- 
sation they are taught a knowledge of God, of Christ, and 
of the demands of the gospel before they can enter the 
church. Among the Jews every baby born of Jewish par- 
ents was a member of the Jewish covenant as soon as born 
and before it was capable of being taught anything. But 
when the apostles were sent out to convert the world to 
Christ, they were to preach the gospel to all. This could 
only be done to those of sufficient age to understand it. 
These were required to believe it, to repent, and to be bap- 
tized. None under the age of responsibility and accounta- 
bility can do these things. Hence, no infants are in the 
church. They cannot understand and obey the gospel. 
The mission of the gospel is to save sinners. Infants are 
not sinners, and, therefore, need not the obedience that 
alone can save sinners. This is one of the differences be- 
tween the two covenants. Those, therefore, who are try- 
ing to put children into the church are reversing God's or- 
der. This man has no right to do. The children do not 
need it till they grow up. 

(2) The things spoken of in this passage that eye had 
not seen nor ear heard were the great blessings of salva- 
tion through Jesus Christ our Lord. Before Christ came 
no human being by human wisdom ever had any conception 
of what these blessings would be; but they are now re- 
vealed to us by the Holy Spirit through the New Testament. 
Hence they are no longer mysteries, but matters of plain 
revelation. 

TIME OF THE SOJOURN IN EGYPT. 

Brother Lipscomb : (1) How long were the Israelites in Egyptian 
bondage? (2) What is intended to be taught in Gen. 15: 13; Ex. 
12: 40; Gal. 3: 17? 

(1) They were in Egypt probably not over two hundred 
and fifty years. Before they went to Egypt they were so- 
journers and wanderers in a land not theirs. From the 
time of the promise to Abraham until the return from 
Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. 

(2) Gal. 3 : 17 tells the giving of the law at Sinai was 
four hundred and thirty years after the promise was made 
to Abraham in the gift of Isaac; and as they were in a 
land not their own, pilgrims and sojourners, it is all counted 
as part of their bondage. Gen. 15 : 13 is a general state- 
ment of the same truth, only it is spoken of in general terms 
as four hundred years, not the exact number. Verse 14 



690 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

means God would afterwards punish the Egyptians who 
held them in bondage. He did this in the destruction of 
Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea and the after evils 
that were brought upon them. The Israelites, notwith- 
standing their bondage, came out of Egypt with much sub- 
stance. Ex. 12 : 40 gives the exact time of the sojourn in 
Egypt, counting from the sojourn in Canaan as pilgrims. 
The Bible sometimes speaks in general terms, as people do. 

"TIMES OF REFRESHING." 

Brother Sewell: Please give me your views on Acts 3: 19: "Re- 
pent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, 
when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the 
Lord." What sins did Peter have reference to? What do you un- 
derstand by the times of refreshing, and when are they to come from 
the presence of the Lord? 

The sins alluded to were the sins the people had com- 
mitted to whom he was talking. When he promised the 
blotting out of these sins, he meant their sins should be for- 
given, if they would do what he commanded them. The 
times of refreshing . . . from the presence of the 
Lord refers to blessings to be enjoyed from the Lord by 
the obedient. Probably in this passage it refers directly 
to the reception of the Holy Spirit by those who obeyed the 
gospel of Christ. In chapter 2 he promised the Holy Spirit 
to the obedient, and likely this is what is meant here. And, 
besides this, there are many blessings promised to those 
that obey the gospel and become Christians, all of which 
come from the Lord, and these may be included also. These 
general blessings of Christianity continue to come from the 
Lord as long as Christians remain faithful till at last the 
Lord will come again and take his people home. E. G. S. 

TIMOTHY, PAUL CIRCUMCISING. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please give me your views on Acts 16: 3. 
Why did Paul circumcise Timotheus after the law requiring that 
service had been taken out of the way, as he very plainly tells us in 
Col. 2: 14? 

Paul tells us that he "took and circumcised him because 
of the Jews that were in those parts : for they all knew that 
his father was a Greek." The law of circumcision was not 
of Moses, but of Abraham. John 7: 22 says that for this 
cause "Moses hath given you circumcision (not that it 
is of Moses, but of the fathers) ; and on the Sabbath ye 
circumcise a man." As a family mark, it was not re- 
pealed ; as an obligation to keep the law of Moses, it was. 
It was not wrong for a Christian Jew to circumcise his 
children. If a Jew had been required to give up circum- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 691 

cision when he became a Christian, there could have been 
no question about circumcising Gentiles ; nor do I think it 
would be wrong for a Christian Jew to circumcise his chil- 
dren as a family mark now. Circumcision is nothing. 
Paul knew that Timothy, being uncircumcised, could not 
reach the Jews. Since it was lawful to circumcise Jews, 
he did it, that he might better reach the Jews ; but when 
Titus, a Gentile, was required to be circumcised that he 
might worship God, or to bind him to keep the law, Paul 
would not for a moment yield. What could be done as a 
family mark could not be done as a service to God. (Matt. 
15: 2-10.) While it was no sin to wash the hands before 
eating as an act of cleanliness, it was a sin as service to 
God, because he had not required it. So whatever is done 
as worship to God that he does not require is sin. 

TIMOTHY, PAUL CIRCUMCISING, AND REFUSING TO 
CIRCUMCISE TITUS. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please give me some 
light on Acts 18: 3? The circumcision of Timothy is quite a remark- 
able event in the history of Paul, and presents a serious inquiry as to 
the consistency of his teaching and of his practice. He says : "Be- 
hold, I Paul say to you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit 
you nothing." (Gal. 5:2.) We see him refusing to circumcise Titus 
(Gal. 2:5), yet we see him circumcise Timothy. 

In the first place, we are satisfied that when Christ died 
and took the law of Moses out of the way, circumcision, 
which was incorporated into the law and became part of the 
law, was also taken away and was not in any wise in force 
upon any one at the time Paul circumcised Timothy. But 
whether it was absolutely wrong for any one, under any 
circumstances, to be circumcised or not, or whether the 
wrong of it depended on the understanding and purpose for 
which it was done, is a question of some importance. We 
know that Paul taught the Galatians that if they became 
circumcised they were then debtors to do the whole law, and 
that Christ would profit them nothing, and that they were 
fallen from grace. But Brother McGarvey, in his "Com- 
mentary on Acts," argues that this passage in Galatians 
must have referred to Gentile Christians, who, under the 
influence of Judaizers, were disposed to submit to circum- 
cision in order to be justified by the law, and that when 
with that design they were circumcised they forfeited all 
claims to the gospel of Christ. In this there is some plau- 
sibility. It may be that, after circumcision was done away, 
those who understood this fact might submit to it to gratify 
the prejudices or whims of others as a matter of indiffer- 
ence to those who had knowledge. Paul taught this princi- 



692 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

pie regarding meats offered to idols : that to a man who had 
proper knowledge in the truth, meat offered in sacrifice to 
an idol was no more than any other meat; but he taught 
at the same time that a man who still believed in the reality 
of idols might eat such meat with an understanding and in- 
tent that would lead him to ruin, even to the loss of his 
soul. Such may have been the case regarding circumci- 
sion. It may have been done, therefore, by Paul just to 
keep down the clamorings of the Jews, while he and Tim- 
othy had such an understanding of the matter that it could 
do neither of them any harm; while others of a different 
understanding, as in the case of the Galatians, might have 
brought their ruin by so doing. We think this would rec- 
oncile the matter without doing any violence to the word of 
God. But if we are to understand that it was absolutely 
wrong for any one to submit to that ordinance after it was 
done away, then we would have to understand that the case 
in hand was a weakness in Paul in acting on his own respon- 
sibility, while not under the immediate guidance of inspira- 
tion. We do not understand that the apostles were at all 
times under the influence of direct inspiration; and when 
they were not, they were no more than other men. Hence, 
many of the inspired men revealed to us in the Bible sinned 
as readily and as egregiously as other men. Moses and 
the seventy elders are examples of this, as well as Pe- 
ter, in the New Testament, when Paul withstood him 
to the face, saying he was to be blamed. Everything the 
apostles taught under the direction of God's Spirit is 
divine; but their individual actions, when left to them- 
selves, was just as other men's; and such was Paul's action 
in the above, if it was necessarily wrong for any one un- 
der any circumstances to be circumcised. This also may 
be a correct solution of the passage ; but if any one has any 
better solution of the matter than the above, he is at lib- 
erty to give it. E. G. S. 

TIMOTHY, WAS HE A BISHOP? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewcll: In a conversation with a Baptist 
minister some days ago, he said that in Paul's letters to Timothy, 
Paul virtually called Timothy a bishoj). He also stated that history 
substantiated the fact that Timothy was first bishop of Ephesus. I 
know there is a statement to that effect appended to what Paul 
wrote; but if Paul says so in his letters, it is more than I can see. 
Does history testify to such a thing? 

We know of no history on the subject, except the tradi- 
tion (Romish) is appended to the letter in some of our cop- 
ies of the New Testament. All the evidence we have shows 
that he was an evangelist and did the work of an evangel- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 693 

ist, not that of a bishop or overseer. The bishop was char- 
acterized as an elderly man of experience and family. Tim- 
othy, when these letters were written, was a youth. "Let 
no man despise thy youth." (1 Tim. 4: 12.) "Youthful 
lusts." (2 Tim. 2: 22.) 

TIM. 1, 5: 24,25. 

Brother Seivell: I want you to give me your views of 1 Tim. 5: 
24, 25. 

These verses are as follows: "Some men's sins are open 
beforehand, going before to judgment; and some men they 
follow after. Likewise also the good works of some are 
manifest beforehand ; and they that are otherwise cannot 
be hid." We think there is a preface for these verses in 
verse 20 of the same chapter: "Them that sin rebuke be- 
fore all, that others also may fear." All that sin should be 
rebuked. But sometimes it will be difficult at least for a 
time to ascertain the sins of some. Some men's sins are of 
such an open and palpable character that they are appar- 
ent to all without, and such should be rebuked before all. 
But, then, there are other men whose sins are of a different 
character— that are hidden, not easily made manifest, but 
that finally they will become known; and when known, or 
ascertained, rebuke them. But in doing these things, he 
says, lay hands suddenly, use discipline rashly, on no man ; 
and yet not pass over sin and overlook it in such a way as 
to seem to recognize it or to justify or participate with it. 
These instructions should be heeded as closely as possible 
by the overseers of churches everywhere, so as far as pos- 
sible to keep down sin and keep the church pure. 

E. G. S. 
TOBACCO. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please answer the following question: Is it 
wrong to use tobacco? If it is wrong to use it, is it wrong to sell it? 

The Bible does not mention tobacco or its use. The con- 
clusion we draw about its use is inferential, not a necessary 
inference. Concerning things of this nature we may act 
on our own convictions, but cannot force them on others. 
To me, it would be a sin to use tobacco. I regard it as 
a filthy, useless habit that injures many and does few any 
good ; but some think there is good in the use. I cannot 
force my opinion on them. Extreme positions do not work 
good. A man who thinks its use a sin could not sell it to 
others without sin. 

Brother Lipscomb : When we take into consideration the evil ef- 
fects of tobacco, would one be justified in raising it if he lives where 



694 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

it is one of the chief products? In other words, is it wrong to raise 
tobacco? 

I take it tobacco has some good uses. So far as it may 
be put to good uses it is admissible to raise it. To him 
that esteemeth a thing to be sin, to him it is sin. It is 
wrong for a man to raise tobacco or anything else he thinks 
harmful in its influence on men. Christians are here to 
lift up and help men, not to drag them down nor to throw 
temptations in their way to injure them. I wish to make 
a prophecy without claiming prophetic ken. That is, the 
high-handed and lawless acts of the friends of tobacco mark 
the beginning of a war over tobacco that will result in its 
destruction as a commodity of commerce and general use. 
A few years ago whisky was a more general and powerful 
article of commerce than tobacco. It controlled the poli- 
tics and the civil governments of all lands and nations. Its 
defiance of all law marked the beginning of its end. I can 
well remember when the most ardent opponent of the use 
of alcohol denied a desire to legislate against it. It was 
political death to a man to be suspected of a desire to legis- 
late against it. Now it is political death to not favor legis- 
lation to remove it from the land. I will not live to see it, 
but children now born, I believe, will live to see the use of 
tobacco prohibited by law. "Whom the gods would destroy 
they first make mad" is an old truism from the Greeks. 

TOMB, HOW LONG WAS JESUS IN THE? 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: Will you please tell me through 
the columns of your paper how long it was from the death and burial 
of Christ to his resurrection? Jesus said to certain of the scribes 
and Pharisees: "As Jonas was three days and three nights in the 
whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights 
in the heart of the earth." (Matt. 12: 40.) He also said to Peter 
and other disciples "that the Son of man must suffer many things, 
and be rejected of the elders, and of the chief priests, and scribes, 
and be killed, and after three days rise again." (Mark 8: 31.) 
Now, it seems to me that in order for these passages of scripture to be 
fulfilled it would have been necessary that three full days and nights 
intervene between the death and resurrection. But from the best in- 
formation I can get from the accounts given by the same writers — 
Matthew and Mark — and also Luke and John, I understand that he 
was nailed to the cross about noon on Friday; that he expired about 
three hours afterwards, and was buried after sundown, perhaps after 
dark (John 19: 39, 40) ; and that when Mary Magdalene and the other 
Mary went to the sepulcher early on Sunday morning, at the rising 
of the sun, or before sunrise, he had arisen and was gone. Now, ac- 
cording to this idea, he could have been in the grave only two nights 
and one day, or about thirty-six hours. Please explain all about the 
matter. 

We insert the note from Brother McGarvey in his "Com- 
mentary on Matthew" as an answer to the above : 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 695 

Three Days and Three Nights. — As Jesus was buried late Fri- 
day afternoon and arose before sunrise Sunday morning, he was in 
the tomb only an hour or two of Friday, all of Saturday, and between 
eleven and twelve hours of Sunday, counting the day, according to 
Jewish custom, as beginning with sunset. It was not, then, accord- 
ing to our mode of expression, three days and three nights, but only 
two nights and a part of three days. We inquire how the statement 
of the text can be true; and, in order to an intelligible answer, we 
note the following facts and considerations: 

1. The time between his death and his resurrection is expressed in 
three different forms. Most frequently it is said that he would rise 
again on the third day. (16: 21; 17: 23, et al.) Once it is said 
that he would rise after three days (Mark 8: 31), and once, in our 
texts, that he would be in the heart of the earth three days and three 
nights. 

2. The Jews at all periods of Bible history used the expressions 
after three days and on the third day as equivalents. Thus Moses 
says that Joseph put his brethren into prison three days; yet in the 
next sentence he represents him as releasing them on the third day. 
(Gen. 13: 17, 18.) When the people petitioned Rehoboam to lighten 
their burden, he said: "Depart ye for three days, then come again to 
me." They departed and came again "the third day, as the king had 
appointed." (1 Kings 12: 5-12.) When Esther was about to ven- 
ture into the king's presence she instructed the Jews in Shushan to 
fast three days night and days; yet she went in on the third day. 
(Esth. 4: 16; 5: 1.) Still more in point, when the Pharisees peti- 
tioned Pilate for a guard, they said to him: "That deceiver said, 
while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again. Command 
therefore that the sepulcher be made sure until the third day." (27: 
63, 64.) Now, with us, if he were going to rise after three days, it 
would be necessary to guard the sepulcher until within the fourth 
day; and so the fast for Esther should have run into the fourth day, 
the people should have returned to Rehoboam on the fourth day, and 
Joseph should have released his brethren on the fourth day. It is 
the peculiar and inaccurate usage of the Jews which makes the dif- 
ference; and that the New Testament writers continued this estab- 
lished usage is proved by the fact that when Matthew and Mark re- 
port the same words of Jesus, one of the expressions is "on the third 
day" and the other "after three days." (16: 21; Mark 8: 31.) 

3. In reality, "after three days" and "after three days and three 
nights" are equivalent expressions; for if you count, for example, 
from Friday at sunset, "after three days" would be after sunset on 
Monday, the three days being Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. But 
in this period would be included three nights — viz., Friday night, Sat- 
urday night, and Sunday night. Now, it is not always true in the 
use of words, as it is in mathematics, that things which are equal to 
the same thing are equal to each other ; but seeing that the expression 
after three days means the same with a Jew as on the third day, and 
that the expression after three days covers the same length of time as 
the expression three days and three nights, the last expression would 
most naturally be used as an equivalent for the first. That it is so 
used by Jesus is clear from the fact that, in speaking of the same 
lapse of time, he sometimes says on the third day and at least once 
he says three days and three nights. The only escape from this con- 
clusion is to suppose that on the occasion of our text he deliberately 
and without reason contradicted himself in the presence of his ene- 
mies; but those enemies themselves, as we have seen, understood and 
employed the usage as he did, and it appears that all parties among 
the Jews understood these expressions as equivalents. There is no 



696 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

contradiction, then, between this and other passages on the subject; 
but the appearance of contradiction arises entirely from a peculiar 
Jewish usage. 

It may be well to remark at this point that the above-mentioned 
facts refute the hypothesis of some that Jesus was buried on the 
afternoon of Thursday. If he had been buried on Thursday and had 
risen Sunday morning, he would have been in the grave three nights; 
but he would have also been there parts of four days, and the Jewish 
expression would have been that he will arise the fourth day or after 
four days. As proof of this, if we count the time from the appear- 
ance of the angel to Cornelius (Acts 10) till the arrival of Peter at 
the house of Cornelius, we find that it is precisely three days, accord- 
ing to our mode of counting; but it includes three nights and parts of 
four days, and hence Cornelius says to Peter: "Four days ago I was 
fasting until this hour," etc. (Acts 10: 30.) 

"TONGUES FOR A SIGN," ETC. 

In 1 Cor. 14: 22 we are told that tongues are a sign to unbelievers 
and that prophesying is for the believers, but in verse 24 we are told 
that the unbeliever is convinced by prophesying. How is the unbe- 
liever convinced by what is not for him? 

Speaking with tongues is speaking in languages unknown 
by the speaker, but understood by the hearers; and when 
one man heard another speaking in his own language, 
knowing that the speaker had never learned the language 
he speaks, then he was convinced that the speaker was en- 
dowed with some power beyond human wisdom, and was 
willing to admit it divine, and in this way the unbeliever 
was convinced of the truth. The word prophesy not only 
means the power to foretell future events, but also means 
the faculty of forcibly setting forth or of plainly teaching 
the truth in the language of the hearers — that is, to teach 
to Christians plainly God's truth in its practical bearing 
upon them. This work of teaching to Christians the prac- 
tical religion of Christ when unbelievers were present who 
understood the language in which it was presented had the 
tendency also to convince them of the truth, though not 
directly intended for that purpose; and even now, since 
the days of miraculous endowments are all past, the plain 
presentation of the practical truths of Christianity often 
reaches the world as readily as the preaching of first prin- 
ciples direct to them. 

"THE ELECT LADY," WHO IS? 

Who is the lady referred to in the Second Epistle of John? Are 
we to understand that she was an individual woman, or does he mean 
the church, the bride, the Lamb's wife? 

The lady addressed is evidently an individual Christian 
woman, to whom John wrote this letter. The third epistle 
was written to an individual man called Gains. The lady 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 697 

is spoken of all the way through as an individual woman. 
He speaks of finding certain of her children devoted to the 
truth, and in the last verse of the letter he sends the salu- 
tation of her elect sister's children. This lady to whom 
John wrote had a sister, whose children were then living 
and who sent their regards to her. Could the church, the 
Lamb's wife, have a sister? If so, who could she have been, 
and who could have been her children? This is conclusive 
evidence that this lady was an individual Christian woman. 
All who are Christians are elect according to the foreknowl- 
edge of God. 

TRANSLATION OF ACTS 2: 38. 

Brother Lipscomb: For the benefit of myself and brethren at An- 
tioch church, we wish to hear from you concerning Acts 2: 38. A 
Baptist here charges that the translation in the Common Version is 
imperfect. 

We do not know the point on which he charges the error 
of translation; so it is difficult to respond to the charge. 
The point of controversy usually is that the baptism is not 
a condition of forgiveness of sins. No translator has ever 
been able to give us a translation that did not involve this 
idea. We dare say none ever will. The Bible Union trans- 
lated it awkwardly, but still the true idea is maintained: 
"Be immersed every one of you upon the name of Jesus unto 
the remission of your sins." But this does not alter the 
sense. The baptism is "unto remission of sins." They 
could not come unto remission without passing through 
baptism, if they are baptized unto remission. Mr. Graves 
says it ought to be: "Be baptized every one of you in the 
name of Christ unto the remission of sins." This in no 
wise changes or modifies the meaning. If a man is bap- 
tized into remission of sins, baptism is the act that passes 
him into remission. He cannot possess or enjoy remission 
until he is put into remission. Since baptism puts him into 
remission, he cannot possess or enjoy remission without 
baptism. No translation has ever been made that does not 
necessarily carry the idea with it. One who would trans- 
late it so as not to contain the idea of remission being con- 
ditioned upon baptism would not be tolerated as a scholar 
for a moment. We recently gave the voice of several schol- 
ars not of us on the translation of the passage. In that list 
is Professor Harkness, of Brown University, who is a Bap- 
tist. Brown University is the oldest and most thorough 
of the Baptist schools, and for a long time Dr. H. B. Hackett 
was a professor in the institution. D. L. 



698 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

"TROUBLED WATERS," HEALING BY THE. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain through your paper John 5: 3-7. 
Verses 3, 4 read as follows: "In these lay a great multitude of impo- 
tent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water. 
For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and trou- 
bled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water 
stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had." Do we 
understand from the reading of the two verses that there was only 
one man made whole between the time of the troubling of the water, 
or was the virtue in the water, or was there any command given to 
those people to comply with in order to cure them? If so, where will 
I find it recorded? 

We have no means of knowing anything about the healing 
qualities of this pool beyond what is said in the above pas- 
sage. Just what the passage says will have to settle the 
matter. There must have been some miraculous power 
connected with that pool at that time, from what John says 
about it. He states it as a fact that at a certain season an 
angel went down and troubled the waters, and that the first 
one who entered afterwards was made whole. As to how 
or why the healing was done in that way, we are not told. 
There was no virtue naturally in that pool, we presume, 
more than any other water. The whole thing, we suppose, 
is to be attributed to miraculous power. And as to com- 
mands, we are not informed that there was any command 
about it, but only a privilege to step in at a certain season 
and be healed. Any one, no matter who, that could get in 
first after the troubling of the waters was healed. Beyond 
this we know nothing. E. G. S. 

UNBAPTIZED, SHALL THE, LEAD IN PRAYER? 

Brother Lipscomb: What right have I to call upon an unbaptized 
person to lead the prayer for the congregation — in other words, to 
ask such a one to pray? If it is right, I want to know it; if it is not 
right, I want to know it. 

It is easy to say, in general terms, that it is wrong to en- 
courage in any way persons who set aside the word of God ; 
but when we come to apply this principle to the practical 
questions as they come up, we find difficulties. Another 
principle is : We ought not to drive off and excite the bit- 
terness of people who are striving to know and do the will 
of God, even though they fall short of understanding the 
truth. How to so draw the line as to harmonize these two 
principles is the difficult question. As baptism is the act in 
which the believer declares his faith in God and God ac- 
cepts him as his child, it seems reasonable we would be safe 
in drawing the line there; but when persons who have 
been baptized into Christ turn from the commandments of 
the Lord, deliberately refuse to be governed by his laws, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 699 

add to or take from his commandments, are they better 
than the unbaptized? Where no specific directions are 
given, some liberty of judgment must be allowed ; and where 
this is allowed, some difference in action must be tolerated. 

I do not know whether a Methodist or Presbyterian is 
less a Christian than a Baptist, or even a disciple, who lets 
his love for his party, or for one practice or another not 
required by God, cause him to depart from the things taught 
in the Scriptures. It is true, baptism is the initial act of 
entrance into Christ, and, as such, stands as the dividing 
line between the children of God and those not children; 
but it is better not to have known the truth than, after hav- 
ing known it, to turn from it. 

I would like to be able to give a clear and definite answer 
to such questions, if I could find it laid down in the Scrip- 
tures; but in the absence of it I can only say we ought to 
be careful to do nothing that will encourage those not fol- 
lowing the law of God to think they are on safe ground ; 
and, under this, each will have to use his judgment in ap- 
plying the rule. These invitations to lead the prayers are 
given, oftentimes, as mere matters of courtesy, regardless 
of the real fitness of the one asked or the desire of the other 
that he should lead the prayers. This asking to take part 
in God's service as a courtesy to men, without regard to 
one's fitness, is all wrong, no matter who is invited, whether 
in or out of the church. To ask a Methodist or Presbyte- 
rian or Baptist to lead the prayers of a congregation, when 
he is not in perfect sympathy with the work and purposes 
of the congregation, is to make mockery of prayer. The 
person who is most in sympathy with the objects of the 
meeting is the one to give expression to and lead in their 
prayers. If we look to these things, study the end and pur- 
pose of the meeting, see the object of prayer, and then lay 
aside all thought of courtesy and favor of men, we will not 
get far wrong. 

UNBELIEVER, WHO THE, IN 1 COR. 7: 12-14. 

Brother Sewell: Will you please explain 1 Cor. 7: 12-14? Is the 
unbelieving here spoken of the alien or erring Christian? 

Here are the verses: "But to the rest speak I, not the 
Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and 
she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 
And the woman which hath a husband that believeth not, 
and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 
For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and 
the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband : else were 
your children unclean ; but now are they holy." The unbe- 



700 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

lieving^ here spoken of are evidently aliens, not erring 
Christians. The sanctifying here spoken of I do not un- 
derstand to have reference to the moral standing of the 
unbelieving husband or wife, but simply to the marriage 
relation. Among the Jews, if a man married a strange 
wife, he must put her away; but under Christianity, if a 
husband or wife should embrace the gospel and the other 
not, the believing husband or wife is not to separate from 
the unbelieving husband or wife. In other words, a hus- 
hand refusing to obey the gospel with his wife, or vice 
versa, does not break the marriage tie. If it did, their 
children born under this sort of relation would be unclean, 
illegitimate. But as the marriage is not broken in such 
case, their children born in such relation are legitimate 
and are to be recognized and treated as such. If every 
time a husband or wife obeys the gospel and the other does 
not breaks the marriage tie between them, and the believer 
does not immediately depart, but continues to live with the 
unbeliever, such a one would be living in adultery, and their 
children would be illegitimate children ; but the one becom- 
ing a Christian and the other not does not break the mar- 
riage tie, and so they can still live together as husband and 
wife and their children be legitimate. This is about all I 
understand from the words sanctify, clean, etc., used in 
the connection. These things I understand to apply to 
those that were married before either one was a Christian. 
I do not understand that the passage in any sense encour- 
ages a Christian to marry an unbeliever. In the latter 
part of the same chapter the apostle says: "The wife is 
bound by the law [the law of marriage] as long as her hus- 
band liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty 
to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord." So it 
is certain that no Christian widow has the right to marry 
one out of the Lord, an unbeliever ; and I can see no reason 
why the same principle does not apply to any Christian man 
or woman that has not been married. So it is utterly un- 
scriptural, as I understand it, for Christians to marry those 
who are not Christians, as indicated by this passage. 
Hence, I think Christians should be thoroughly on their 
guard in this matter, and not put themselves out of har- 
mony with the word of God nor put themselves into trouble. 

UNION MEETINGS. 

Brother Sew ell: Will you please give us your views on the church 
of Christ uniting with the Methodists, Cumberland Presbyterians, 
and Baptists in having a union prayer meeting? All but a few of 
the brethren at Dawson are in favor of it, and we cannot conscien- 
tiously do so, as we claim that they are not in Christ. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 701 

The above is generally regarded as a delicate question 
either to talk about or to write about. Yet every question 
involving truth and duty ought to be freely and calmly dis- 
cussed. If the denominations named above are all right 
as such, then the disciples of Christ are in many things 
wrong; but if the disciples of Christ are right in their 
claim and practice, then these denominations are in many 
things wrong. The disciples of Christ cannot afford to en- 
ter into any sort of compact or connection with denomina- 
tions that will recognize them as being all right in their 
names, their claims and practices, without imposing upon 
and dishonoring in some measure the word of God, which 
does not name or recognize any of them as such. That they 
all teach and practice some things that are in the Bible, we 
presume no one will deny ; but that they all teach and prac- 
tice some things that are not in the Bible is equally certain. 
This being true, disciples of Christ cannot make an indis- 
criminate compact with them in anything that will recog- 
nize them as all right when they do not believe they are. 
In this sense, then, we say to the above question, "No." 
But if disciples of Christ will frankly say to these denomi- 
nations, "We think that in some things you are radically 
wrong, but we are willing to engage with you in prayer 
meetings with this understanding : that we will prayerfully 
read and investigate the word of God in these meetings re- 
garding our differences and see if we cannot harmonize 
upon the teaching of that word, and all of us become one 
people in the sight of the Lord and in the light of God's 
truth," such a union prayer meeting as this might result 
in great good. But we cannot see how good can result from 
a union prayer meeting that ignores all differences, and 
thus blots out the line between truth and error. Christians 
must be frank and conscientious before God in all things ; 
and when they really think others are wrong in any matter 
involving the plain word of the Lord, they ought to say so, 
and enter into no compact that will silently ignore errors 
and act as if they were not errors, and thus involve them- 
selves in the errors of others by publicly recognizing them 
as right in the sight of God and men; but let them, with- 
out hatred or bitterness or prejudice, name the errors of 
others and agree to prayerfully investigate the word of God 
regarding them, with the understanding also upon the part 
of disciples that if in these investigations they find that 
they hold any errors they will give them up. If all would 
do this in such unions, great good might result; otherwise 
we think harm, and not good, to the cause of truth would 
result. But we suppose it would be difficult to get up such 



702 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

a? union prayer meeting as this. We have never known 
such a one, and yet would be willing to enter no other kind. 

E. G. S. 

UNPARDONABLE SIN, CAN THE, BE COMMITTED 
NOW? 

Brother Sewell: I have been a reader of the Gospel Advocate for 
several years, and have never bothered you with any question. Now 
I kindly ask you to answer this: Can a person commit the unpar- 
donable sin now? What is meant in 1 John 5: 16? What is the sin 
unto death? Is that the unpardonable sin? 

In Matt. 12, when Jesus had cast out a demon and had 
restored sight and hearing to a man, the Pharisees accused 
him of casting out demons by Beelzebub, the prince of the 
demons. In reference to this charge Jesus said: "There- 
fore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be for- 
given unto men ; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall 
not be forgiven." (Verse 31.) This matter of accusing 
Jesus of casting out demons by Satanic power is the un- 
pardonable sin. This also is generally understood to be the 
sin unto death spoken of in 1 John 5 : 16. But a more se- 
rious matter is that any sin persisted in will become a sin 
unto death. Yes, it is sadly true that any man can com- 
mit the unpardonable sin by attributing anything that was 
done by the miraculous power of the Holy Spirit to the 
power of Satan. But the danger is that many souls will 
be lost in eternity by continually leading lives out of har- 
mony with the will of God. It is, therefore, well for Chris- 
tians to guard against every character of sin, as there are 
very few that are likely to become so awfully corrupt as to 
say that the miracles claimed to have been done in New 
Testament times by the power of the Holy Spirit were done 
by Satanic power. None but an out-and-out infidel could 
say such a thing. But many so-called Christians are daily 
following things which, if continued in, will land them in 
perdition. All should strive to avoid these. 

UNREGENERATE, CAN THE, BELIEVE? 

Brother Seivell: Can a man believe in any sense what a preacher 
says when he preaches the gospel and still be an unregenerated sin- 
ner? Please answer fairly and squarely. 

I do not know what sense or meaning you would attach 
to the word regeneration, but suppose you would use it in 
the sense in which it is used in the 'Theological Compend," 
a little book published and used by the Methodist Church. 
That book defines regeneration thus : 

"Regeneration and Adoption. — These are the leading blessings 
concomitant with justification. Whenever they are mentioned in 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 703 

scripture, they involve and imply each other. This thought may pre- 
serve us from errors. (Tit. 3: 7; 2 Pet. 1:3; Rom. 8: 17.) Al- 
though we must distinguish these blessings from each other and from 
justification, yet they are not to be separated. They occur at the 
same time, and they all enter into the experience of the same person; 
so that no man is justified without being regenerated and adopted, 
and no man is regenerated and adopted who is not justified. Regen- 
eration is the work of the Holy Spirit by which we experience a 
change of heart — the recovery upon the heart of the moral image of 
God." (Pages 80, 81.) 

Such is regeneration as presented in the "Compend." 
It is a little mixed as presented here, but enough is said to 
show that regeneration and adoption are so connected to- 
gether that the one implies the other, and are not to be 
separated, and that when a man is regenerated and adopted 
he is justified, and that this regeneration is a work of the 
Spirit, changing the heart and restoring the moral image 
of God. Supposing that you would use regeneration in this 
sense and that you use unregenerate as the opposite of that, 
we must unhesitatingly and unequivocally answer that 
there is a sense, and a very important sense, in which a 
man may believe the gospel and yet be an unregenerate 
sinner. Certainly that is fair and square. But we will 
give some reasons for our conclusions. When Christ was 
personally on earth, there were many who believed in him, 
and never were justified, so far as the Bible informs us. 
In John 12: 42, 43 we have the following: "Nevertheless 
among the chief rulers also many believed on him ; but be- 
cause of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they 
should be put out of the synagogue: for they loved the 
praise of men more than the praise of God." Here were 
persons that did believe on Christ and were still unregen- 
erate, not adopted, not justified, in the sense of your the- 
ology. And as these persons did believe on the Son of God 
and were still unregenerate, certainly a man might believe 
the gospel now and still be unregenerate. A man must per- 
fect his faith by obedience before he can be justified. A 
man must have faith before he can do anything else accep- 
tably to God, but faith fills its own place only. It does not 
fill the place of repentance or baptism. Those chief rulers 
did not repent ; for if they had, they would have been will- 
ing to confess Jesus. They did not love him, for Jesus 
says : "If a man love me, he will keep my words." Again, 
John says : "If any man love the world, the love of the Fa- 
ther is not in him." Those rulers loved the world, loved 
the praise of the world ; and, therefore, the love of the Fa- 
ther was not in them. Men can do the same things now, 
and surely you would not claim that men are regenerated 
who love the praise of men more than they love the praise 



704 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of God. Men have to believe the gospel before they will re- 
pent, or love God, or be baptized, or anything else that God 
commands ; and they may, like the chief rulers, believe and 
do nothing more. In such cases their "faith is dead/' as 
James expresses it, "being alone." A man may believe the 
truth of almost any sort of a proposition without yielding 
his heart and life to it. I believe that Texas is a good coun- 
try^ but I have not yet seen proper to exchange my own 
native State for that one. Upon the same principle men 
may believe the gospel and not be willing to give up the 
pleasures of the world to embrace it. Paul teaches that if 
people do not obey the gospel they will "be punished with 
everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and 
from the glory of his power." (2 Thess. 1: 9.) Peter 
also teaches the same thing. (See 1 Pet. 4.) So if by 
unregenerate you mean not justified, not pardoned, not born 
again, we say, Yes, most emphatically, to your question. 

But allow me to say also that the word regeneration is 
not used in the New Testament as it is used in your "The- 
ological Compend." The word of God teaches plainly 
enough that we must be born again, must be converted, 
must be pardoned ; but the word regeneration is not used 
in the Bible in that sense, and it is certainly better to call 
Bible things by Bible names. And, again, when your 
"Compend" speaks of regeneration being the "work of the 
Holy Spirit by which we experience a change of heart," if 
it means a direct or abstract work of the Spirit and separate 
and apart from the word, then we deny that the word of 
God teaches any such thing. The Spirit of God has always 
taught man and worked his influence upon man through 
words; and in this way we believe that the Spirit of God 
makes Christians, but that it never did make Christians by 
a direct work upon the heart. When men hear the gospel 
as preached by the apostles, believe it with the heart, re- 
pent of their sins, confess Jesus, and are baptized into him, 
they have the promise of pardon, and not till then. 

E. G. S. 

UNTAUGHT QUESTIONS. 

Brother Lipscomb: We are told in Eccles. 12: 7: "Then shall the 
dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto 
God who gave it." Now, if the spirit returns to God, does not the 
spirit of the wicked man return to God? If so, are not the spirits 
of the wicked and the righteous at the same place, or in the same 
state? If so, when are they separated? Some say that each goes to 
its final destination as soon as the body dies. This I do not believe. 
As I am well pleased with your answers in general, please give me all 
the light you have on this subject. I know Solomon says, "Fear God, 
and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man;" but 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 705 

this does not interfere with our gaining all the knowledge we can about 
other matters. A.lso, what are the seven pillars of wisdom spoken of 
in Prov. 9:1? 

We have not one idea or particle of light on this subject. 
We have found our life too crowded with practical matters 
to find time for speculation on impractical and untaught 
questions. Then we always were too lazy to work either 
mentally or physically where we have no hope of gaining 
something. In this field we could have no hope whatever 
of gaining anything, no matter how much time and labor 
we spent; so we spend our time and ability in fields of 
thought more promising of results. We said recently we 
supposed all spirits returned to God to be judged by him. 
The Bible says when they are judged by the King, who shall 
come in all his glory and sit on his throne in his glory, they 
will be separated — those who have done good to the poor, 
to sit on his right hand and inherit the kingdom prepared 
for them from the foundation of the world ; those who have 
not done good to the poor shall depart into everlasting fire 
prepared for the devil and his angels. 

We do not know what the seven pillars that wisdom 
hewed out were. A guess about it would not have much 
that would be profitable. D. L. 

Brother Lipscomb: I desire to ask a few questions. Was it the 
human or the divine part of Christ that died? He took upon himself 
humanity; and if it was only the human part, we have only a human 
sacrifice instead of a divine. If there be an immortal principle dwell- 
ing in man that never dies, what is the difference in man and Christ? 
If man has immortality, then why do we seek for immortality? 

These are questions concerning which neither Christ nor 
the Holy Spirit ever made revelations. The revealed things 
belong to us and our children ; the unrevealed, to God. We 
presume Christ's life, begotten of the Holy Spirit, partook 
in all its parts of the divine nature, just as the human life 
of the child partakes of the human nature of the father. 
We see no occasion or example for speculating concerning 
the divine and the human as distinct in Christ. It is an un- 
taught question, which is only calculated to gender strife 
rather than godliness. 

The word immortal is never used in the Bible as the 
equivalent of eternal existence. It means more than this ; 
it means eternal existence, free from suffering. Immor- 
tality is never affirmed of the devil or concerning hell. 
Both may have eternal existence, yet neither is immortal. 
God, who dwells in the light, inaccessible, only is immortal, 
because he alone is free from suffering or corruption. 

It is just as pertinent to ask, "What is the difference be- 



k 



706 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

tween the nature of the devil and that of Christ ?" if both 
have eternal existence. Learned and lengthy articles are 
frequently written on immortality by persons who have 
never learned its simple scriptural signification. D. L. 

USURY. 

Brother Lipscomb : Will you be so kind as to tell us what the Bible 
defines as usury? 

Usury is increase for the use of money or property. The 
law of Moses forbade the charging any increase "to any of 
my people that is poor by thee." (Ex. 22 : 25 ; see also I ev. 
25: 35.) It says not a word about charging usury to the 
well-to-do. They were not a trading, speculative people, 
and probably borrowed only for necessity. It forbade the 
taking of any increase from the poor. Nothing is said di- 
rectly on the subject in the New Testament, but principles 
are laid down that would forbid taking increase from a 
poor brother in Christ. Nothing is said about lending to 
speculate on and make money. There is no more sin in 
taking increase for money than for the use of other prop- 
erty. The law of the land fixes a rate, and Christians 
must submit to "the powers that be." 

VEILING THEIR FACES, WOMEN. 

Brother Lipscomb : Do you think that a woman should have her 
head veiled when praying? 1 Cor. 11 seems to teach that she should. 
Please explain verse 16: "But if any man seem to be contentious, we 
have no such custom, neither the churches of God." 

I understand that long hair serves as a veil or token of 
her subjection to authority; and if she has not long hair, 
she must cover her head when she approaches God in wor- 
ship. I understand this to refer to her approach to God 
in private or in public assembly when others lead in wor- 
ship. Many interpret this to mean that she is to do these 
things when she leads in public worship, but the Scripture 
saying nothing of this. The point is, How shall she appear 
before God in worship? not, How shall she appear before 
men? This order is to be observed by women when they 
pray alone or when they join with others in social or pub- 
lic worship. A woman prays when she follows the lead of 
others in prayer as much as were she to lead in prayer. 
We understand verse 16 to say that the churches of God 
have no such custom as the women appearing in worship 
with uncovered or shorn heads, 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 707 

VOICE, THE, HEARD BY SAUL. 

Can you tell what voice it was the men heard who were with 
Saul on his way to Damascus, when the Lord appeared to him in 
Acts 9: 7, which reads thus: "And the men which journeyed with 
him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man?" Also, 
what voice was it in Acts 22: 9, which reads thus: "And they that 
were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard 
not the voice of him that spake to me?" Please answer through the 
Gospel Advocate. 

The voice that the men who journeyed with Paul heard 
was evidently the voice that spoke to Saul. But the men 
did not understand the words addressed to him. Hence 
the passage that says they heard not the voice is about the 
same in meaning as if it said they understood not the voice. 
The voice spoke to Paul in the Hebrew language, and we 
presume those that were with Saul did not understand it. 
This, we presume, is as good an explanation as can be given 
of it. 

VOTING. 

A brother and I were talking on prohibition. He said that if I 
did not vote in the coming election I would be guilty of the damnation 
of the drunkard's soul. I told him that I never voted. Please give 
us your views on the subject. 

We cannot now enter into a lengthened argument on the 
subject of voting. We believe the Scriptures furnish a 
man fully unto all good works. It nowhere tells or gives 
the example of any Christian voting or using the govern- 
ments of earth, which in the Bible are recognized as be- 
longing to the prince of this world, to accomplish good. 
God overrules them, as he does all the institutions of evil, 
to bring good to his children. We believe that God's laws, 
God's provisions, are sufficient for all the good a Christian 
can do on earth. If he will do what God requires, use the 
appointments God has ordained for his use, and leave the 
results with God, he will save more souls than he will by 
using any of the powers of earth through which to work. 
I know that God's appointments and agencies look feeble 
and foolish to men, while man's look wise . and efficient ; 
and if a man walks by his own wisdom, he will follow the 
inventions of men ; but if he trusts God, he will use God's 
appointed agencies and leave results in the hand of God. 
I have faith in God, so do not expect to vote on any ques- 
tion. If human government banishes whisky, I will re- 
joice ; but a man that has not moral strength to quit drink- 
ing when whisky is in his reach is not fit for heaven. So- 
ber men that refuse to obey God need salvation as much as 



708 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the drunkard, and are frequently just as unwilling to be 
saved. A sober man who refuses to obey God does as much 
harm and needs salvation as much as the drunkard. 

VOTING IN THE CHURCH. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Seivell: If I understand you, you hold 
there should be no voting in a church of Christ. Now, I suppose a 
case. A brother is before the church for a positive violation of the 
law of the Lord, and all the members except one, two, or three are 
anxious to have the church withdraw fellowship from him. What is 
to be done in such a case? 

The word of the Lord, and not the wisdom or choice of 
the members, should be the guide in all cases of the violation 
of the Lord's word ; and all the members should be of one 
mind in all such cases. Where differences exist as to the 
guilt or the character of discipline that should be used, 
then it is better to go slow and investigate the matter till 
all can see what the word of the Lord requires. The word 
of God must be the rule in all discipline, as well as in other 
matters of faith and practice. The word of God tells what 
Christians must do and what they must not do ; and when- 
ever a member is found to violate any of these principles or 
precepts by which the Christian is to be governed, efforts 
should be made by the elders to reform the erring one; 
and if earnest, scriptural efforts fail and he persists in the 
error of his way, then the command of God to the church 
is to withdraw from such. In such case, if any of the 
members attempt to defend such a one in his wrongs, all 
such identify themselves with the wrongdoer and array 
themselves against the word of the Lord and in favor of 
wrong, and in such cases lay themselves liable to discipline. 
Men who try to uphold others in sin identify themselves 
with sinners, encourage sin, and place themselves on the 
side of the wicked. This is always the case where the guilt 
of the party is plain ; but where the guilt is not plain, where 
there is reasonable doubt in the premises, where the proof 
is not positive, then go slow and stand upon the side of for- 
bearance and mercy till the truth is fully ascertained. No 
personal or party feeling should ever be indulged in such 
cases. Members should not be brought under discipline 
except for their own good, and not to gratify animosity or 
personal ill will. Members that would attempt to disci- 
pline others through any sort of strife, ill will, or animosity 
are guilty of violating the word of God and need discipline 
themselves. The discipline of the church must be carried 
on in the proper spirit, and then no voting will be needed. 
We had just as well take the vote of the members as to 
whether an alien may confess the name of Jesus and be 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 709 

baptized or not as to take the vote of the church to see 
whether one that has plainly violated the law of God and 
will not make amends shall be withdrawn from or not. 
The word of God must be our rule in discipline as well as in 
bringing aliens into the church of God. 

Last Sunday one of our brethren who had transgressed confessed 
and wanted the church to forgive him. A motion was made and sec- 
onded that we forgive the brother; but when we went to vote, one of 
the brethren objected and said we had no scriptural authority for 
voting in the church. The matter was discussed in the church, but 
was not settled. We want you to give us your views on the subject. 
If we are not allowed to vote, how are we to ever get the voice of the 
church on anything? If a brother asks the church to forgive him, 
how is he to know whether he is forgiven or not unless it is left to a 
vote? Please answer this, as the church is divided on this subject. 

Do you vote when an alien repents and complies with the 
law for admission? Why any more necessity for voting 
when a sinning brother complies with the law of restora- 
tion? Does one law depend upon the will of the church 
more than the other ? Is the obligation to receive the pen- 
itent more dependent upon the will of the church in one 
case than the other? A vote implies a right to object or 
accept. We deny the right to reject any one who com- 
plies with the lav/ of God, hence the right to vote where God 
has made a law. Voting is calling for division. We doubt 
the propriety of ever calling for divisions and settling any 
questions by mere numbers. There is a better way, even 
in matters where no specific law is given, of deferring to 
the wisdom of the older and more experienced and devoted 
members of the church, and so seeking and reaching una- 
nimity, which is according to the law of God. We believe 
this possible and much better. Some ridicule this, I know, 
and insist on the businesslike and worldly-wise way of vot- 
ing and deciding by majorities in the church. We have 
noticed such are more efficient in getting into difficulties, 
making parties, and destroying churches than they are in 
healing difficulties, promoting brotherly love, and building 
up churches of God. We learn that the penitent brother 
above referred to was restored without a vote by a humble 
prayer for his forgiveness and for strength to live a better 
life in the future. This was according to divine will and 
certainly better. 

Has a church of Christ a right, under any circumstances, to take 
a vote — that is, in a business capacity? For example, the congrega- 
tion at A desires me to labor in word and doctrine. Can they scrip- 
turally give an expression by saying Aye or by arising to their feet? 
Again, an unruly member is to be withdrawn from. How shall we 
get the mind of the church in the case? Again, Brother A wants a 



710 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

letter of dismission for other parts. Have the elders a right to give 
that letter without the knowledge of the congregation? If not, how 
shall we get their mind? 

As to the matter of voting, Christians have no right to 
vote in matters of God's authority, in things God has com- 
manded to be done ; but there are some things we do, such 
as building meetinghouses and a great many other like 
things, that are left to our common sense. In these things 
voting may be as good a plan as any to find whether the 
brethren are of one mind or not ; but when a vote is taken, 
it should be with a view to find whether the brethren are 
of one mind or not. When the voting shows a division of 
sentiment, it is very seldom safe to have the majority rule. 
Christians are required to be of one mind ; and when they 
differ, they had better reason together until they be agreed 
and then act together. When they adopt the principle that 
the majority must rule, they are almost certain to get up 
strife and division even over the smallest matters. The 
rule then should be to determine whether the thing to be 
done is a command of God or a matter of expediency. 
Withdrawing from unruly members is a command of God 
and does not admit of voting. When a congregation pro- 
poses to employ a man to labor for them in word and doc- 
trine, they should take some steps, by voting or otherwise, 
to find whether they are agreed or not; and, if not, they 
should go to work to that end before they act. So of every 
other thing not commanded. 

VOTING MEN OUT OF THE CHURCH, ETC. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell : Please give the New Testament 
teaching in the following cases: 

1. Suppose a member of the church mistreats a man that is not a 
member, to whom is confession due — to the church or the offending 
man? 

2. Suppose he (the member of the church) persistently refuses a 
reconciliation with the offended man, is it the duty of the church to 
have anything to do in the case? 

3. In cases of discipline, after the elders have investigated a case 
and decided that a member ought to be withdrawn from, is it their 
duty to submit their decision to a vote of the congregation and let a 
majority rule? 

4. In case Brother A has a difficulty with a man (not a brother), 
and asks the elders of his congregation to tell him his duty, and 
Brother B, without seeing the elders, should advise Brother A to dis- 
regard the counsel of the elders, has not Brother B done violence to 
the peace and harmony of the congregation? 

1. He ought to make confession to both. He ought to 
confess the wrong to the man he has wronged as a part 
of the reparation he must make, without which there is no 
repentance. He ought to make it to the church, because 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 711 

God says : "Confess your faults one to another, and pray 
one for another, that ye may be healed." 

2. If a brother wrongs another, it is the duty of the 
church to see that he repents of that wrong and rectifies it. 
The man who wrongs another wrongs his own soul much 
more than he wrongs that other. He wrongs Christ, in 
whose name he professes to act. It is just as much the duty 
of the church to see that he acts uprightly toward those 
without as toward those within. The duty of the church 
is to see that he practices the religion of the Savior ; that 
he does not wrong and ruin his own soul and bring shame 
upon the church of Christ. 

3. I do not believe in minority or majority rule. The 
law of God must rule. To it every member must submit, 
and in cases of discipline every member ought to be satis- 
fied that God's law is complied with. 

4. Any member that abuses another, does not heed the 
counsel of the elders, is guilty of gross violation of the law 
of the Lord and ought to repent of his sin. If a member 
thinks the counsel of the elders faulty, he ought to see them 
and strive to make them sensible of their wrong. 

Brother Lipscomb: Who controls the congregation of Christ — the 
voice of the majority or the elders? How would you proceed in deal- 
ing with a disorderly member after all means have been exhausted 
in trying to save him? If the elders in their wisdom have decided 
that a member should be withdrawn from, can they do so as long as 
there is one dissenting voice in the congregation? How much au- 
thority does the eldership have in matters of discipline? 

The voice of God must control a congregation if it is a 
church of Christ. This is the only test of fidelity to God. 
If the voice of God does no* control, it is not a church of 
Christ. Elders are the older members, familiar with the 
Scriptures, of good judgment, and imbued with the Spirit 
of God, whose duty it is to see that all obey the word of 
God. If any violate the law of God, it is the duty of those 
who know it either to see him in person or see that some 
one who will have influence with the sinner warn him of 
his evil and point out the law of God he has violated, and 
admonish him he should repent. The elders are the head, 
or overseers, of the church. If those who see the wrong 
fail to induce the sinner to turn from it and confess it, it is 
their duty to take others with them to remonstrate. If they 
fail (see the order, Matt. 18), tell it to the church. To do 
this is to report it to the elders, the head or rulers, of the 
church. They are to examine the case and determine what 
wrong, if any, he has committed, seek to show him his 
wrong. If he hears them, they have gained him. The eld- 



712 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

ers should report the case to the church, give the facts in 
the case, lay before the members the charges and the evi- 
dence on which they are based, the scriptures violated, 
and the law requiring the action taken. The vote ought 
never to be put to the congregation as to whether they will 
withdraw from him or not. There is no authority for 
such a course, and such cases ought not to be decided by 
vote of the congregation, but by the law of God. This 
question might properly be put: Does any one know any 
reason why the conclusions set forth here are not true and 
scriptural ? If so, the elders will hear the reasons ; and if 
they are found just, they should have their influence. If 
not, the elders should seek to show the truth both as to the 
facts and the scripture teaching to those who do not see it, 
that all may act with unanimity in the decision reached. 
This conference between the elders and those dissatisfied 
will be much more free from passion and feeling if private, 
yet the whole congregation is entitled to know the facts. 
Patience and persistence should be exercised in trying to 
get all to see the truth, that all may heartily agree in the 
course. I will not say that no action should be taken while 
one dissents. This might be proper if all were led by the 
Spirit of the gospel ; but many let their family pride and 
fleshly feelings, rather than the word of God, control them 
in such matters. Some think they show love and kindness 
to kindred and friends when they object to the church en- 
forcing the law of God on their families or friends, but this 
is a mistake. A father or mother shows true love for a 
child by desiring the laws of God to be enforced when he 
does wrong. God's laws are for the good of all who sin. 
True love for the sinner, even if he be our own child, will 
prompt us to see the law enforced, that he may get the good 
that comes through the law of God. We are real enemies 
to our children when we object to their being dealt with ac- 
cording to the law of God. The parents should be as ready 
to report the sins of a child that they cannot correct to the 
church as any one else would be or as they would be to re- 
port any one else. True love for the child seeks the true 
good of the child, and that is promoted by the discipline of 
the law of God ; but many are not willing for the law of 
God to be enforced with reference to their kindred or 
friends, and to say the discipline shall not be enforced as 
long as one objects is to place it in the power of one such to 
veto the enforcement of the law of God. It is true that 
parents that object to the law of God being rigidly applied 
to their own child, relative, or friend are not worthy to be 
members in the church of God, but they are often; and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 713 

when this spirit manifests itself, such should be dealt with 
in patience to save them from this sinful course; but such 
should not be permitted to hinder the enforcement of the 
law of God. 

When the elders have labored patiently with those who 
are unwilling to see the law enforced and they fail to get 
them to do right, then the facts should be stated to the con- 
gregation, the Scriptures read, and the congregation should 
sustain the elders in their decision heartily and cheerfully. 
If the friends and kindred remain perverse and fractious 
after all patience and effort to get them right, they should 
be disciplined ; for no one who objects to the law of God be- 
ing enforced upon a child, a husband, a sister, a brother, 
or a parent, is a true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ. But 
all this work must be done by the elders in a spirit of Chris- 
tian love ; and freedom from personal or partisan feeling or 
partiality, the good of all, the salvation of those who sin, 
should be the one leading object of all true servants of God. 
So all must be done in kindness and love, that the sinning 
one may be made to feel that the elders are his true friends 
and seeking his good. When he is made to feel this, then 
their work will be almost sure to prove effective. The eld- 
ers, acting according to the law of God, have the full au- 
thority of God, just as the representative of a government, 
acting according to the laws of the government, carries the 
full authority of that government. If not acting according 
to the law of God, they have no authority whatever. What 
the proper representatives of a State do, the State does. 
No one would think to enforce or execute the laws of a State 
upon a violator of that law the people must take a popular 
vote on trial of every case. That would be clumsy; and, 
left to a popular vote, the laws would not be executed with 
any certainty. It would depend upon the prejudices and 
excited feelings of the multitude. These are notoriously 
unreliable. What the legally constituted representatives of 
a people do in accordance with the laws governing that peo- 
ple, the people do. The New Testament is the law of the 
church, and the elders the scriptural representativs of the 
church. The duty of the elders is to teach and enforce obe- 
dience to the Scriptures. D. L. 

"WATER AND BLOOD," HOW CHRIST "CAME BY." 

Brother Sewell: Please explain 1 John 5: 6-10 through the Gospel 
Advocate. 

Yerse 6 declares that Christ came by water and by blood. 
This means that when Christ came in his great mission to 
save a ruined world, water and blood were both connected 



714 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

in the wonderful plan he came to provide. In the first 
place, when Christ was ready to enter upon his public min- 
istry, he was baptized by John in the river Jordan, thus 
submitting himself to his Father's will in this divine insti- 
tution. It was at his baptism that he was identified as the 
Son of God. The Holy Spirit came upon him in visible 
form, and at the same time the Father spoke out, saying: 
"This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." 
Then, when he died upon the cross, his blood was shed "for 
many for the remission of sins," while on that same occa- 
sion water came from his side when pierced by a soldier, 
thus putting the blood and water in close connection. On 
the evening of his betrayal he established "the Lord's Sup- 
per," making the wine the emblem of his blood, which was 
to be and is now being perpetuated in the church of God. 
Also baptism was ordained by Christ in the divine commis- 
sion as one of the conditions upon which pardon, remission 
of sins, could be obtained. Thus in the gospel plan of sal- 
vation the water and the blood are so arranged and con- 
nected that the benefits of the blood cannot be reached by 
people till baptized. In submission to the ordinance of bap- 
tism we enter into Christ, "in whom we have redemption 
through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the 
riches of his grace." (Eph. 1: 7.) Verse 7 of the Com- 
mon Version is left out of the later versions because it is 
thought to be an interpolation. Verse 8 says : "And there 
are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the 
water, and the blood : and these three agree in one." This 
shows that we have three witnesses on earth to the truth 
that Jesus is the anointed Son of God. The Holy Spirit 
bears testimony through the word of truth ; the wine in the 
Lord's Supper, representing the blood of Christ, is also a 
continued witness to the same truth; while baptism, rep- 
resenting the burial and resurrection of Christ, also bears 
testimony to him. These ordinances would not have been 
in existence had Christ not been on earth and ordained them. 
Hence we have connected with the church these three con- 
tinued witnesses to the great truth that Jesus is the Son of 
God. Verse 9 emphasizes faith in the testimony of these 
witnesses as we believe the testimony of men ; while verse 
10 tells us that when we believe the testimony of these wit- 
nesses we have the assurance in ourselves, in our own 
hearts, that he is the Christ. Thus we have all the evi- 
dence in these three witnesses that could be desired to the 
truth of Jesus, the chief corner stone of the new and ever- 
lasting covenant. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 715 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In 1 John 5: 8 we have: "And 
there are three that bear witness on earth, the Spirit, and the water, 
and the blood: and these three agree in one." I would like to know 
something about how they bear witness and how they agree in one. 

1. The Spirit bears witness through the word of God, 
which word was attested as from God by miraculous pow- 
ers through the apostles, who by the Spirit were enabled to 
perform those miracles. 

2. The water bears witness through the divine institu- 
tion of baptism. Every time one is buried with Christ in 
baptism, testimony is thereby borne to the truth that Jesus 
is the Christ, the Son of God. He ordained the ordinance, 
it continued to be done in his name, and thereby testifies to 
the truth that he is the Son of God, the Savior of sinners. 

3. The blood continues to bear witness through its rep- 
resentative, the wine, in the Lord's Supper. Every time 
the Lord's people set the wine upon the Lord's table on the 
first day of the week and partake thereof, they thereby 
give repeated evidence that Christ died for our sins, and, 
therefore, he is the Son of God. Such an ordinance as the 
Lord's Supper never could have arisen and been perpetu- 
ated if the events it commemorated had never occurred. 
These three witnesses, therefore, agree in that testimony to 
the one truth that "Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God ;" 
and truly and well does their testimony establish the truth 
of that wonderful proposition. 

WATER, THE CLEAN, OF EZEK. 36: 25. 

Brother Lipscomb: When, wiiere, and upon whom was the clean 
water mentioned in Ezek. 36: 25 and Isa. 52: 15 to be sprinkled? 

In Num. 19 : 1-10 we have an account of the preparation 
of the waters of separation, or purification, or cleansing, as 
it is called. "And the Lord spake unto Moses and unto 
Aaron, saying, This is the ordinance of the law which the 
Lord hath commanded, saying, Speak unto the children of 
Israel, that they bring thee a red heifer without spot, 
wherein is no blemish, and upon which never came yoke. 
And ye shall give her unto Eleazar the priest, that he may 
bring her forth without the camp, and one shall slay her 
before his face: and Eleazar the priest shall take of her 
blood with his finger, and sprinkle of her blood directly 
before the tabernacle of the congregation seven times : and 
one shall burn the heifer in his sight; her skin, and her 
flesh, and her blood, with her dung, shall he burn : and the 
priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and 
cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. Then 
the priest shall wash his clothes, arid he shall bathe his flesh 
in water, and afterwards he shall come into the camp, and 



716 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the priest shall be unclean until the even. And he that 
burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his 
flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even. And a 
man that is clean shall gather up the ashes of the heifer, 
and lay them up without the camp in a clean place, and it 
shall be kept for the congregation of the children of Israel 
for a water of separation : it is a purification for sin. And 
he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his 
clothes, and be unclean until the even : and it shall be unto 
the children of Israel, and unto the stranger that sojourn- 
eth among them, for a statute forever/' These ashes of 
the heifer and the cedar and hyssop were kept, and when- 
ever a Jew or any vessel from any cause became unclean, 
he must take of water from a running stream, mix these 
ashes with it, and sprinkle himself or the vessel before he 
could be clean or come into the congregation of Israel. 
Verses 11-20 give an example of how it was used: "He that 
toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven 
days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, 
and on the seventh day he shall be clean: but if he purify 
not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not 
be clean. Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man 
that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the taberna- 
cle of the Lord ; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel : 
because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon 
him, he shall be unclean ; his uncleanness is yet upon him. 
This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent : all that come 
into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean 
seven days. And every open vessel, which hath no cover- 
ing bound upon it, is unclean. And whosoever toucheth 
one that is slain with a sword in the open fields, or a dead 
body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven 
days. And for an unclean person they shall take of the 
ashes of the burnt heifer of purification for sin, and run- 
ning water shall be put thereto in a vessel : and a clean per- 
son shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle 
it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the per- 
sons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or 
one slain, or one dead, or a grave : and the clean person shall 
sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the sev- 
enth day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, 
and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall 
be clean at even. But the man that shall be unclean, and 
shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from 
among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanc- 
tuary of the Lord: the water of separation hath not been 
sprinkled upon him ; he is unclean." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 717 

This water was called cleansing, or clean, water ; 'purify- 
ing, or pure, water. To speak of sprinkling pure water 
came to mean the person or vessel was cleansed and puri- 
fied, just as to bow before the Lord came to mean to pray 
to him, since men bowed or knelt to pray. So when it says 
they were sprinkled with clean water, it meant they had 
repented of their wicked ways and turned to the Lord and 
he had forgiven them. The Jews had gone into idolatry, 
had been carried into captivity, and were in a foreign land 
when Ezekiel told them : 'Then will I sprinkle clean water 
upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, 
and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart 
also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you : 
and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and 
I will give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit 
within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye 
shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell 
in the land that I gave to your fathers ; and ye shall be my 
people, and I will be your God. I will also save you from 
all your uncleannesses : and I will call for the corn, and will 
increase it, and lay no famine upon you." This means 
when they repented he would cleanse them — he calls it 
sprinkling clean water upon them — so purify them and 
bring them back to their own land and bless them with 
abundance. Isaiah, if we accept it as a correct translation, 
would mean that when Christ came, not only the Jewish na- 
tion, but many nations, would repent, turn to the Lord, and 
be cleansed. In the margin of the Revised Version it is 
startle instead of sprinkle. This is in accord with the con- 
text: "Like as many were astonished at thee, (his visage 
was so marred more than any man, and his form more than 
the sons of men,) so shall he sprinkle [startle] many na- 
tions ; kings shall shut their mouths at him : for that which 
had not been told them shall they see ; and that which they 
had not heard shall they understand. " The whole context 
shows that wonderful afflictions of Jesus would astonish 
and startle the different nations of the earth. The Septua- 
gint, the version in use among the Jews in the days of Je- 
sus, and which he quoted, gives it: "Thus shall many na- 
tions wonder at him, and kings shall keep their mouths 
shut." This is the true meaning as now recognized by 
scholars. Paul refers to this custom of cleansing from un- 
cleanness by the sprinkling of the water of cleansing when 
he speaks of their having their hearts sprinkled from an 
evil conscience and their bodies washed with pure water. 
Their hearts are purified from evil desires and they are 
baptized into the remission of sins. 



718 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

WHEAT AND TARES, THE. 

Brother Lipscomb: What is the lesson taught in the parable of 
the wheat and tares? (Matt. 13: 24.) 

As we understand this parable, in the church God sowed 
only good seed. The devil, while God's servants are care- 
less and indifferent, sows evil seed. Evil springs up in the 
church. The wheat, which comes from the good seed, are 
the disciples of Christ — faithful, good, and true to his laws 
and appointments. Errors are taught, are introduced in 
the church. All error is from the devil. Some in the 
church act on the erroneous principle ; they are tares. The 
servants, who in the parable represent the heavenly mes- 
sengers, seeing this, ask: "Shall we not root out and de- 
stroy the tares?" Shall we, the heavenly messengers, the 
supernatural agents, interfere and purify the church? 
Christ answers: "Nay; lest, in gathering up the tares, ye 
root up the wheat also. Let them both grow together until 
the end of the world ; then my reapers, these same heavenly 
messengers, shall gather the wheat into the garner and burn 
the chaff with fire that is unquenchable." The parable only 
deals with the question : Shall the supernatural agents, the 
heavenly messengers, the angels, interfere to purify the 
church here on earth? It teaches emphatically that they 
shall not. This parable teaches nothing as to what the 
wheat — the true members — shall do. Other scriptures give 
us abundant instruction on this point. D. L. 

"WHIRLWIND," JEHOVAH IN THE. 

Brother Sewell: I wish you would write a piece in the Gospel Ad- 
vocate on Nahum 1: 3, or the teaching as set forth in that verse. 

The verse follows: "Jehovah is slow to anger, and great 
in power, and will by no means clear the guilty: Jehovah 
hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the 
clouds are the dust of his feet." This book is supposed to 
have been written some seven hundred years before Christ 
was born. The preceding verse contains some severe warn- 
ings and threatenings against the enemies of the Lord, but 
does not in the immediate connection tell who they were; 
but as the whole book of three chapters was written about 
Nineveh, its terrible wickedness and the terrible overthrow 
that awaited it, we may reasonably conclude that the verse 
above, as well as the whole three chapters of that book, has 
reference, directly or indirectly, to the destruction and 
utter downfall of that great and very wicked city. The 
verse named and others like it show that God is able and 
would certainly bring to naught that renowned city. He 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 719 

was able to bring up the whirlwind and the mighty storm, 
or to stir up other nations, kings, or kingdoms, and turn 
them against Nineveh to destroy it. The same book fore- 
tells that the river on which Nineveh was built would have 
a prominent part in its downfall; and so, sure enough, 
through these agencies, the city of Nineveh was completely 
overthrown about B.C. 606. It is said of Nineveh in the 
days of its prosperity that it was sixty miles in circum- 
ference, and that it was surrounded by a brick wall one 
hundred feet high, with fifteen hundred towers two hundred 
feet high, and many thousands of warlike people within. 
And they evidently felt that no power could overthrow 
them ; yet it was a remarkably easy matter for the Lord to 
arrange powers that could overthrow that great and power- 
ful city and bring upon it such a complete destruction that 
it would be difficult to trace the outlines of that once large, 
rich, and powerful city. But while this passage has direct 
reference to the destruction of Nineveh, it at the same time 
gives us an example of God's dealings with wicked nations 
as well as wicked individuals. All wicked nations and 
wicked people will meet their downfall sooner or later. If 
the ruin of wicked men does not overtake them in this life, 
it will be meted out to them in the world to come. Incorri- 
gibly wicked nations have been falling all through time, 
and doubtless will till time shall end. All people should 
take warning from such terrible calamities as have re- 
cently fallen upon many parts of the United States in the 
way of storms, floods, and fires, and try to improve their 
lives. Christians especially should strive to live more thor- 
oughly in harmony with the will of God ; and those who are 
not Christians should wake up, take warning, and seek an 
interest in the blood of the Lamb, lest some sudden destruc- 
tion should come and cut them off and their chance of sal- 
vation be ended forever. God has been sending similar 
chastisements through all the ages upon the wicked and 
negligent; and while we may not always be able to tell why 
or for whose sake certain calamities are sent, we may al- 
ways be sure that the hand of God is in such things, and 
Christians especially should always be made better by them. 

"WIND" IN JOHN 3: 8. 

Brother Sewell: Please give through the Gospel Advocate your 
views on John 3 : 8. 

The verse is this: "The wind bloweth where it listeth, 
and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell 
whence it cometh, and whither it goeth : so is every one 
that is born of the Spirit." The word rendered wind is 



720 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

the word that is rendered Spirit in the latter part of the 
same verse and everywhere else in the New Testament, ex- 
cept two instances out of three hundred and eighty-five 
occurrences of the word in the New Testament; and we 
think it should be so rendered in this passage. All under- 
stand this verse 8 to refer to the work of the Spirit in con- 
version, and we need not, therefore, trouble about a new 
version of it. But this verse is only a figurative reference 
to the matter, and not a full explanation of it; and in or- 
der, therefore, to learn how the Spirit does this work, we 
only need refer to Acts 2, where the Spirit actually came 
and made three thousand converts in one day, and by exam- 
ination of that case we can find exactly how the work was 
done. We find there that the Spirit came upon the apos- 
tles, spoke through them, and taught the words addressed 
to their understanding — taught them in plain words how 
Jesus had died, been buried and raised from the dead, and 
had thus provided a plan of redemption for sinners. The 
Spirit through Peter required them to believe by saying in 
verse 36 : "Therefore let all the house of Israel know as- 
suredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye 
have crucified, both Lord and Christ." The words know 
assuredly give a very strong requirement for faith. And 
they immediately did believe, for they cried out: "What 
shall we do?" Then the Spirit through Peter told them 
in plain, unmistakable words what to do — that is: "Re- 
pent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the 
gift of the Holy Ghost." "Then they that gladly received 
his words [the words of the Spirit telling them what to do] 
were baptized: and the same day there were added unto 
them about three thousand souls." When these people had 
thus obeyed the words of the Spirit, had done what the 
Spirit said do, they were pardoned, were born again, were 
born of water and of the Spirit, and were members of the 
church of God. We now have on record the words of the 
Spirit as it spoke through the apostles; and by obeying 
these words now, as the people did then, we will also be 
born again — born of the Spirit. The Spirit never entered 
secretly into the heart of any one to convert him, so far as 
the Bible records ; but all that will obey the requirement of 
the Spirit through the word of truth will also be born of 
the Spirit now as well as then. E. G. S. 

WINE, WHAT KIND IN THE SUPPER. 

Brother Sewell: What kind of wine should be used round the 
Lord's table? Should it be mixed wine, blackberry, or some other 
kind? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 721 

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper, he said: "But 
I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of 
the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my 
Father's kingdom." (Matt. 26: 29.) That expression 
fixes the wine that Jesus used at the institution of this 
feast to be grape wine. By the expression, this fruit of 
the vine, he meant grape wine, most assuredly; and that 
makes it plain that no sort of mixed wine should be used 
in this institution, neither blackberries nor any other sort 
of fruit. All should be careful that they use pure juice of 
the grape — pure grape wine. The Book must be the Chris- 
tian's guide. 

WINE, BLACKBERRY, IN THE SUPPER. 

Brother Lipscomb: I am a member of a congregation of disciples 
where we meet on the first day of the week to break bread. We use 
blackberry wine; and, according to the way I understand the Bible, 
the brier or thorn represents sin, and I do not think it is right to use 
blackberry wine. 

The Bible says "the fruit of the vine" — i. e., grape juice — 
was what was used. I do not think blackberry wine or 
anything else than what was ordained by God should be 
used. The grape is in the reach of all, and there is no 
kind of excuse for not using what God ordained. This ten- 
dency to make substitutes for the appointments of God has 
been the besetting sin of humanity, and should be guared 
against. It seems to me there was a special appointing of 
the fruit of the vine as the memorial of the blood of Jesus. 
If so, it is a sin to substitute anything in lieu of it. 

WINE, TIMOTHY, ELDERS, AND. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please give the scriptural meaning of the 
words rebuke and elder in 1 Tim. 5:1: "Rebuke not an elder." Also 
please explain verse 23, which reads thus: "Drink no longer water, 
but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake and thine often infirmi- 
ties." 

Elder was an older member. He was not to be con- 
demned or reproved roughly by a young evangelist; but if 
he sees him wrong, he is to entreat him with deference and 
courtesy as a son would a father or mother. It is simply 
an admonition to be gentle, kind, and courteous in inter- 
course and association and in teaching and instructing all. 
Especially the old were to be treated with respect. He 
shows this deference to age again when he tells him in 
verse 19 : "Against an elder receive not an accusation, but 
before two or three witnesses." God in all ages demands 
especial respect to the aged. To the Jews he commanded : 
"Thou shalt rise up before the hoary head, and honor the 



722 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

face of the old man, and fear thy God: I am the Lord." 
(Lev. 19: 32.) He connects respect for old age with fear 
of God. 

Timothy did not drink wine. That is clear. He re- 
frained from it, doubtless, because it was regarded by the 
Holy Spirit as incompatible with the Christian character. 
The curse of God was upon it and all who "look upon the 
wine when it is red, when it giveth his color in the cup, 
when it moveth itself aright. At the last it biteth like a 
serpent, and stingeth like an adder." Timothy knew the 
evil as condemned in the Scriptures, which he had known 
from a child, and refrained from the use of it, confining 
himself to the use of water. He was often afflicted. His 
stomach was disordered. Yet such an evil he recognized the 
use of wine to be he suffered rather than countenance its 
use by Christians. Paul wrote to him: "Drink no longer 
water [alone] , but use a little wine for thy stomach's sake 
and thine often infirmities." Paul thought he might use it 
for the curing of his disordered stomach and to relieve his 
frequent sickness ; but, then, he was to be cautious to use 
only a little. 

It shows plainly in what esteem the inspired men held 
the use of wine. It could be used only in cases of sickness, 
and then only in small quantities. No Christian ought ever 
to think of touching it under other conditions. D. L. 

WINE, OLD AND NEW BOTTLES, ETC 

Please explain Matt. 9: 16, 17. What did the Savior aim to teach 
by the old and new cloths and the new and old wine and bottles? 

The leading thought before the Savior was to impress the 
disciples of John that he had not come into the world to 
make an institution like others that already existed, nor 
to model after the practices and customs of others, but that 
he was going to build an entirely new institution, with new 
habits, new customs — everything new. The disciple, John, 
had just asked: "Why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, but 
thy disciples fast not?" The verses named are in reply to 
that question. These disciples of John and the Pharisees, 
doubtless, thought that there was to be no improvement to 
be made beyond where they stood — that they had reached 
perfection already, and that whatever Jesus did must be 
like what they did. They could not realize that their cus- 
toms would all be set aside; that all institutions that then 
existed were to be set aside. So there are many in the 
world now that do not believe there was ever any thorough 
setting aside of the Jewish law or of John's ministry as such, 
but that these have simply been remodeled — some things 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 723 

taken away and others added on, but that the same old cov- 
enants still exist. But the language of Jesus on this oc- 
casion concerning the new wine and new bottles forever sets 
aside such an idea. Christ did not come to patch his insti- 
tution upon the old by merely remodeling, but he came to 
establish a better covenant upon better promises — to make 
a new covenant, with new laws. Hence, when he died, hav- 
ing fulfilled the law in his own life, he took the law out of 
the way, nailing it to his cross ; and when the Spirit came 
upon the apostles, the new and living way was established. 

WISE MEN, THE, AND THE SHEPHERDS. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please tell me whether the wise men spoken 
of in Matt. 1: 2 and the shepherds spoken of in Luke 2: 8 are the 
same or not. 

The shepherds and the wise men were not the same per- 
sons. So far from it, their visits were near two years 
apart. 

Luke gives the account of the birth of Jesus (verses 1-7) 
and the appearance of the heavenly hosts to the shepherds 
on the night of his birth and their going at once to Beth- 
lehem and finding the babe in the manger (verses 8-20). 
He was circumcised the eighth day. (Verse 21.) Forty 
days from the birth of the child they brought him to Jeru- 
salem for Mary to make an offering for her purification and 
to offer the child to the Lord. (Verses 22-24.) Simeon 
and Anna, on the occasion of presenting the child to the 
Lord, made their prophecies. (Verses 25-38.) "And when 
they had performed all things according to the law of the 
Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own city Naza- 
reth." (Verse 39.) No doubt as soon as Mary was able 
to travel after the birth of the child they returned to Naz- 
areth, and remained there we know not how long. They 
did not go to Egypt at this visit to Bethlehem. Luke does 
not tell of the second visit to Bethlehem, when they went 
down to Egypt. This history of Luke begins with the birth 
of the child and extends until it was a month or two old, 
when all returned to Nazareth. 

Matthew tells of the birth of Jesus, but says nothing 
about the visit of the shepherds; nor does he tell of any- 
thing that occurred at that visit to Bethlehem and Jerusa- 
lem, save the birth. He does not tell of the departure of 
the family to Nazareth. But he tells of another visit the 
family made to Bethlehem, in which the wise men came 
from the east and worshiped the child. At this visit Herod 
inquired for Jesus with desire to kill him as the heir to the 
throne of Israel. At this second visit God told Joseph to 



724 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

carry the child into Egypt, and at this time they went from 
Bethlehem to Egypt instead of to Nazareth. They re- 
mained in Egypt until the death of Herod, and, returning 
from Egypt, went and dwelled at Nazareth. (Matt. 2: 
1-23.) 

The wise men had seen his star in the east when he was 
born. Now, as they leave Jerusalem, the same star guided 
them to Bethlehem, where the child was again. They had 
told Herod it had been two years since this star appeared. 
When they failed to return to tell him where they found 
the child, he, to be sure he killed this child, ordered all the 
children from two years old and under to be slain. This 
shows the coming of the wise men was near two years after 
the birth of Jesus and the visit of the shepherds. 

WITCHES AND FAMILIAR SPIRITS, ARE THERE, 
NOW? 

Brother Seivell: According' to New Testament teaching, are there 
witches, magicians, and such like, who can call up familiar spirits 
and talk with them? 

Witches and witchcraft are spoken of in the Bible, but 
are represented as exceedingly wicked, and the whole thing 
is thoroughly condemned. It was said through Moses: 
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live/' (Ex. 22: 18.) 
Again : "There shall not be found among you any one that 
maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or 
that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an en- 
chanter, or a witch." (Deut. 18: 10.) Again, God said: 
"And I will cut off witchcrafts out of thine hand ; and thou 
shalt no more have soothsayers." (Mic. 5: 12.) These 
passages show that there were witches, witchcraft, and such 
like in the days of the Old Testament, and that witches 
were too wicked to be allowed to live among the Jewish 
people. In the New Testament witchcraft is named among 
the works of the flesh. (Gal. 5: 20.) So there is nothing- 
good said of witches or witchcraft in the Bible. There is 
a wonderful item of history in 1 Sam. 28 about the witch 
of Endor raising Samuel from the dead to talk with King- 
Saul. This passage shows something of what witches 
claimed to do in those days, but it also shows that the witch 
of Endor was terribly excited when Samuel appeared at her 
call. Evidently nothing of this sort had ever occurred 
with her before, and evidently this appearance of Samuel 
was especially permitted of God to show to King Saul his 
approaching end for his wicked course in life. The Lord 
had refused to give any sort of communication to Saul, and 
in his desperation he had gone to the witch of Endor to try 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 725 

to get some information from the Lord ; and it was per- 
mitted that Samuel should appear and tell him of the death 
of himself and his sons, which very soon came to pass. I 
do not understand that witches ever had the power to do 
what the witch of Endor did, simply as witches. If they 
did, it was the power of Satan working through them. 
Hence the above case was a special one for a special pur- 
pose against King Saul on account of his wicked course. 
But witches, as such, have never had the power to do what 
this woman did. Whatever they did that made them re- 
nowned in those things was the work of Satan wrought 
through them or some sleight-of-hand deception worked by 
them to deceive the people and make them think they had 
extra powers. The whole matter of witches and witchcraft 
is exceedingly wicked, the whole tendency of which is to 
turn people away from the Bible. There is nothing in it to 
be desired by godly people. 

WITHDRAW FROM A BROTHER, HOW TO. 

• Brother Seivell: Do you understand that, in withdrawing from a 
disorderly member, the church should come together and pass resolu- 
tions, or should they just simply refuse to worship and company with 
such? Please tell us how you think the Corinthian church disposed 
of the fornicator mentioned in 1 Cor. 5. 

There is no specific form of withdrawal given in the New 
Testament; but when a member violates the word of God 
and cannot be induced to reform his life and make amends 
for his wrongs, it ought to be so stated before the whole 
church, and that the church can no longer fellowship the 
individual till he reforms his life. There is no need of any 
resolutions in the case. The word of God is plain and says 
to withdraw from every brother that walketh disorderly, 
and this also requires that the individual members shall 
carry out this withdrawal by refusing to recognize such 
offender as a Christian in the daily walks and associations 
of life ; yet not treat him as an enemy, but admonish him as 
a brother. These things must be done, but they need no 
specific formalities or resolutions to do them. We must 
not establish fixed formalities where God has established 
none. Organizing things and forms as fixtures in the 
church are very injurious to the cause of truth. Where 
things are commanded and no specific form is 'given, do 
them in the simplest way, as the circumstances demand, but 
fix no formulas. 

WITHDRAWING FROM A BROTHER, MEANING OF. 

Brother Lipscomb : I want you to explain the meaning of ivith- 
drawing fellowship. Can it be done other than by the church with- 
drawing their daily associations from a disorderly brother or sister? 



726 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

It seems to me our brethren make a great mistake along this line 
many times. Please explain this. 

Jesus (Matt. 18: 15-17) says: "If thy brother shall tres- 
pass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee 
and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy 
brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee 
one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses 
every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to 
hear them, tell it unto the church : but if he neglect to hear 
the church, let him be unto thee as a heathen man and a 
publican." That certainly means more than refusing in 
their daily walk to associate with him; it involves a spe- 
cific action of the church. In 1 Cor. 5: 1-4 Paul tells of 
one who was living in adultery. In verses 4, 5 he says: 
"In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gath- 
ered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord 
Jesus Christ, to deliver such a one unto Satan for the de- 
struction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the 
day of the Lord Jesus." Here they were to come together 
and by the authority of the Lord Jesus Christ deliver such 
a one to Satan. This was certainly a formal action of the 
whole church. But this withdrawal embraced a refusal to 
associate with the evildoers, that they might feel the shame 
of the course and turn from it; yet while doing this they 
were not to treat him as an enemy, but entreat him as a 
brother. See 2 Thess. 3 : 14, 15 : "If any man obey not our 
word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company 
with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as 
an enemy, but admonish him as a brother." The with- 
drawal is an act of the whole church, yet the individual 
members are to carry it out by withdrawing their associa- 
tion in private life. 

WITNESSES, THE TWO. 

Brother Lipscomb : Who were the two witnesses spoken of in Rev. 
11: 3-12? 

We do not know who the two ivitnesses were. We have 
no faith in speculations on the interpretation of prophecy. 
We think in their final meaning these prophecies are sealed 
books as yet. The time may come in the future when some 
event will transpire that will throw light upon these proph- 
ecies, will give a key to their interpretation. Just as be- 
fore the coming of Christ none could possibly appreciate the 
meaning of the prophecies that had gone before concerning 
him — not even the prophets who prophesied concerning him 
understood the meaning of their prognostications; but 
when he came, his life, mission, death, resurrection, and as- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 727 

cension gave the key and explained it all. All the specula- 
tions in reference to these unfulfilled prophecies are vain 
and delusive. Some teachings in them, as was true con- 
cerning Christ's first coming, are plain and can be under- 
stood. But we have never known a man to give himself up 
to the interpretation and elucidation of those prophecies 
concerning his second coming and those to be fulfilled in 
the future that did not make shipwreck of his faith and 
subvert those who were led by him. 

While we know nothing concerning this scripture that 
would benefit any one, we do know some things concerning 
a number of very plain, practical passages of scripture that 
would greatly help all if they would believe the Lord and 
obey him. D. L. 

WOMAN, HOW "THE WEAKER VESSEL." 

Brother Sew ell: Please explain 1 Pet. 3: 7. How is the woman 
the weaker vessel? 

The passage is this : "Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell 
with your wives according to knowledge, giving honor unto 
the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint 
heirs of the grace of life ; to the end that your prayers be not 
hindered." In the first place, the apostle was addressing 
Christian husbands, whose wives were Christians also. It 
is a fact that women, as a rule, are more delicately formed 
physically than men, and are, therefore, less able to do the 
heavy, rough work that men do, and we suppose that is the 
sense chiefly in which the apostle used the word weaker. 
It is also true that as women are more delicately formed, 
they are better looking than men. Here is what Clarke's 
"Commentary" says about it : " 'As the weaker vessel' — be- 
ing more delicately and consequently more slenderly con- 
structed. Roughness and strength go hand in hand; so 
likewise do beauty and frailty. The female has what man 
lacks — beauty and delicacy; the male has what the female 
lacks — courage and strength. The one is as good in its 
place as the other ; and by these things God has made an 
equality between the man and the woman, so that there is 
properly very little superiority on either side." There is 
nothing in the connection to indicate that the apostle had 
any reference to inferiority of mental ability; for if the 
woman lacks anything in strength and vigor of thought, 
she fully makes it up in tenderness, affection, and nice 
adaptation to the home relations of life that man would not 
miss for anything. The woman can surpass man in the 
whole matter of making home attractive and happy ; and as 
for caring for and training the babes and little children, 



728 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

woman is out of sight ahead of man. But when it comes 
to the matter of the rough-and-tumble work of providing 
the bounties of life, man is far ahead of woman in that, be- 
ing better suited in his whole physical make-up for that side 
of life. So women need never become sensitive over the 
expression the weaker vessel, but ought rather to be thank- 
ful for the possession of so many touching and tender sen- 
sibilities that men would not miss for the world. Let 
Christian husbands and wives be happy also that they are 
heirs together of eternal life. 

WOMAN, THE, OF REV. 12. 

Brother Sewell: (1) Please explain Rev. 12: 1-12. Who was that 
ivoman, and what child was that, and when was it born? When was 
that war in heaven? Who were the Satan and his angels spoken of? 
Where did that salvation come? Did it come to the earth, or did it 
come to the relief in heaven? What strength and kingdom was that? 
Is it the kingdom John spoke of in Matt. 3: 2? (2) Explain also 
Rev. 14: 1-5. What Lamb was that on Mount Zion? Who were 
they that had their Father's name in -their foreheads, and who were 
they that were harping with their harps and that sung a new song? 
What song was that? 

(1) We do not propose to attempt any definite answer to 
these questions, as we are not certain as to what they were 
intended to show. Some commentators claim that the 
woman in chapter 12 represents the church, and that her 
travailing pains represent the persecutions the early church 
suffered in her efforts to propagate the gospel of Christ, 
and that the child represents converts to Christianity, and 
that the great red dragon represents heathen Rome in its 
terrible efforts to prevent the spread of the gospel and the 
conversion, the birth, of souls to Christ. It is true that the 
early church suffered immensely at the hands of pagan 
Rome, and it may be that that is what this passage is in- 
tended to teach, but we cannot in confidence say so. Oth- 
ers can take the claims of the commentators for just what 
they think they are worth. 

(2) As to chapter 14, the Lamb mentioned is understood 
to be the Son of God, which seems reasonable enough. As 
to the hundred and forty-four thousand that were with him, 
with his Father's name written upon their foreheads, the 
commentators claim that these were the early Jewish Chris- 
tians, the first to obey the gospel and to live until death 
upon its pure and holy principles, and that these were the 
hundred forty and four thousand that were sealed, as 
spoken of in the first part of chapter 7. This all looks nice 
enough, and it may be true that they were the ones that 
stood with the Lamb and that sung the new song. Yet 
most of these things may be theories of men, formed as 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 729 

speculations, without sufficient foundation in fact. We 
have never yet claimed to fully understand these and other 
strange and wonderful figures in the book of Revelation. 
Hence we will not speak definitely as to their meaning. We 
are sure that if our salvation depended upon our under- 
standing all of them they would have been made plainer. 
Let us study plain matters more. 

WOMEN SPEAKING IN THE CHURCH. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35. 

I do not know how to explain that language. I cannot 
write it in simpler words, plainer, or put it in a connection 
that would make it easier to be understood. "Let your 
women keep silence in the churches : for it is not permitted 
them to speak, but to be in subjection, as the law also says." 
I cannot make that any plainer. The next verse says : 
"And if they wish to learn anything, let them ask their hus- 
bands at home: for it is a shame for a woman to speak in 
the church." I do not know how to add a word that can 
make it clearer, more direct, or more forcible. One who 
can explain that away can explain away anything I can 
write, and one who will not regard that ought not to regard 
what I would say. Paul gives the same admonition to 
Timothy to direct him as an evangelist and teacher in in- 
structing all churches he might plant or teach: "Let the 
woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer 
[permit] not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over 
the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, 
then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman be- 
ing, deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding 
she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith 
and charity and holiness with sobriety." (1 Tim. 2: 11- 
15.) This means she is to work in the sphere of childbear- 
ing and training, and her work in the church should be in a 
private and quiet manner. 

WOMEN SPEAKING IN SCHOOLS. 

Brother Seivell: What difference is there between a young lady 
speaking publicly at the close of school and publicly teaching or 
preaching the word of God in the church? 

There is certainly a very decided difference in principle 
between reading or reciting a piece at the close of school 
and in teaching or preaching the word of God in a public 
worshiping assembly of Christians. The latter is certainly 
condemned in the word of God. There is nothing directly 
said in the New Testament as to what girls should do in 



730 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

schools or what they should not do ; but it is required of 
Christian parents to bring up their children "in the nurture 
and admonition of the Lord," and it would certainly be safe 
for all schools run in harmony with the Christian religion 
to train all who attend them in full harmony with the 
requirements of the New Testament. It would not only be 
safe, but would be consistent and in harmony with the New 
Testament. This is a subject Christian teachers and man- 
agers of such schools would do well to think about, and not 
train Christian girls in any custom or habit that might lead 
and encourage them to do things later that are forbidden in 
the word of God. 

WOMEN PRAYING IN PUBLIC. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it wrong for women who are members of the 
church of Christ to pray in the public assembly of the saints? I 
claim it is as much right for women to pray in public as it is in pri- 
vate. Was it a practice in apostolic times? Please answer through 
the Gospel Advocate. Also explain Acts 1: 14; 1 Tim. 5: 5. From 
the reading of these passages it seems to me that the women prayed 
in apostolic times in the public assembly of the saints. I cannot see 
why it is any more wrong for women to pray in public than it is in 
private. 

We have very frequently answered this question. Paul 
says to the Corinthians: "Let your women keep silence in 
the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; 
but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith 
the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask 
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to 
speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14: 34. 35.) That was 
commanded the church at Corinth. He told Timothy: 
"Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection. But I 
permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a 
man, but to be in quietness. For Adam was first formed, 
then Eve ; and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman be- 
ing beguiled hath fallen into transgression ; but she shall be 
saved through the childbearing, if thev continue in faith 
and love and sanctification with sobriety." (1 Tim. 2: 
11-15.) This instruction was given to Timothy to be 
taught wherever he went. The reason given for the law 
was a general one; hence the law must be general in its 
character. 

The scripture referred to (Acts 1: 14) says: "These all 
[the apostles] continued with one accord in prayer and sup- 
plication, with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, 
and with his brethren." Does this mean that these women 
led in public prayer? Do only those who lead in prayer 
at church pray? Do not all who kneel pray? If they do 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 731 

not pray, they ought not to kneel. To kneel and not pray 
is to be guilty of false pretense. I have engaged in prayer 
a thousand times with women, but never had one to lead in 
prayer. A rule is, we must let one scripture interpret an- 
other — must interpret them in harmony. To have the 
women lead in public prayer can never be harmonized with 
the scriptures quoted above. To let them quietly engage 
in prayer when the apostles led in public prayer is to har- 
monize them. That is what was done. 

The other says: "The widow indeed continueth in sup- 
plications and prayers night and day." (1 Tim. 5: 5.) 
Certainly you do not think they led in public prayer night 
and day. They quietly and at home did it. God made 
woman modest and quiet. He never intended her to lead 
in speech or prayer in public assemblies, and she does vio- 
lence to her nature and the law of God when she does it. 
On the other hand, she is to give herself to the work of 
childbearing and raising. In this she can be saved if she 
conducts herself right. 

Brother Sewell: The question arose in prayer meeting the other 
night as to whether a woman should pray in public or not. One 
brother said that he thought it would be right, but all the rest fought 
it. I would like for you to give your opinion on the question as to 
whether it is right according to the book of inspiration — the Bible. 

This, like all vital questions, must be settled by the word 
of God. There is no instance on record in the New Testa- 
ment in which a woman was ever sent out to preach the 
gospel of Christ or to be in any sense a public teacher or 
proclaimer in the church. Men were, but women were not. 
In no mention of public prayer is there any mention of a 
woman's leading in it. There is not a word commanding 
a woman to lead in such prayers. This silence of the Bible 
on these things must of necessity be regarded, or there can 
be no such thing as unity in the churches. We cannot tell 
what the Lord wants us to do as service to him, except as 
he tells us in his word ; and as he has nowhere required 
that women shall lead in prayer in public assemblies of the 
church, they surely have no right to do anything of the sort. 
I know that many try to explain away the positive prohi- 
bition : "Let the women keep silence in the churches : for 
it is not permitted unto them to speak; but let them be in 
subjection, as also saith the law. And if they would learn 
anything, let them ask their own husbands at home: for it 
is shameful for a woman to speak in the church." Some 
explain this away in one way ; some, in another. But I do 
not know any way to so explain it as to ever make it right 
for women to speak publicly or teach or lead in the public 



732 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

prayers of the church. If we could find one command or 
one example for women to do such things, then we would 
have to let all such passages modify each other ; but in the 
absence of such passages, we do not know how to modify 
such a plain prohibition. This does not mean that women 
are not to pray at all, nor that they shall not sing, shall not 
join in the song service, for the whole church is embraced 
in the command to sing. Women can join in solemn, silent 
sentiment with the prayer as expressed by the leader, as 
all the brethren who are present; and the prayer of the 
brother who leads becomes the prayer of the whole church 
present. Then women may at all times pray in secret, as 
well as men, and they certainly ought to do so. But if a 
very plain modification of the above passage cannot be 
found, it is certainly safe to let the prohibition stand. Then 
we are satisfied that a woman may teach a class to itself, 
so as to make it a private matter, like Priscilla and Aquila. 
Nor do we see harm for women, where there are no men to 
lead, to pray, as Lydia and other Jewish women at Philippi. 
But let us not interfere with what is plainly prohibited. 

Brother Seivell: We know from 1 Cor. 14: 34 that it is wrong for 
a woman to be a public proclaimer of the gospel; but is it wrong for 
women to pray in the church or anywhere else under the orders of the 
church? (See 1 Cor. 11: 3.) 

The teaching of the New Testament is always in perfect 
unity with itself, so that no one passage conflicts with an- 
other on the same subject. There is not a passage in the 
New Testament that presents a case in which women were 
charged to go out and proclaim publicly the gospel of 
Christ, either in connection with men or alone. Neither is 
there a case where women were authorized by any church 
or by inspired men, or in any other way directed, to lead 
the prayers in churches or elsewhere. Women evidently 
were in churches where public prayers were engaged in, 
but there is not an example where a woman led them. 
Christian women, no doubt, prayed in these assemblies, 
just as the brethren did who were not leading the prayers. 
One man led the prayers on occasions of public worship, 
while all the rest, brethren and sisters, heartily in senti- 
ment kept up continued mental response with the petitions 
uttered by the one leading. In this way, or something 
equivalent to it, did the women pray in the passage named, 
but not as leaders in the public prayers. In this passage 
the apostle was discussing the question of wearing long hair 
by the women as the sign of subjugation on the part of 
women to their husbands, and not of public prayers by 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 733 

women. This passage in no wise conflicts with the passage 
in chapter 14 on the subject of women speaking publicly in 
the church. 

WOMEN CONDUCTING WORSHIP. 

Brother Lipscomb : There are two persons here who are members 
of the church of Christ (if there are others, I know nothing of 
them) — myself and my mother, Mrs. Frank McKean. Realizing our 
duty of bringing our children up in the way of the Lord, we con- 
cluded some time back to meet on the Lord's day at one of our resi- 
dences to worship him. We sent to you for literature which we mean 
to use. As women are supposed to occupy a modest position in the 
church, I beg of you to advise us. We would like to partake of the 
Lord's Supper. Would it be a mistake for us to partake of it with- 
out a brother to offer thanks, etc.? Now, any advice will surely be 
appreciated. 

The best we can do is to publish this and say to those in 
reach of them: Help those women willing and anxious to 
labor in the Lord. I do not believe there is anything wrong 
in these sisters' worshiping together and remembering the 
sufferings of the Lord in his appointed institution. When 
Paul was at Philippi, "on the Sabbath day we went forth 
without the gate by a riverside, where we supposed there 
was a place of prayer ; and we sat down, and spake unto 
the women which were come together." (Acts 16: 13.) 
The women had met together for prayer. I suppose they 
prayed. No man is mentioned as being present, save Paul 
and his companions. There is no more wrong in a woman's 
giving thanks for the bread and wine than there is leading 
in prayer with no man present. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Seven sisters and one brother 
meet regularly on the first day of the week. If it should so happen 
that the brother could not be present, would it be right and acceptable 
for the sisters to meet, sing, pray, and partake of the Lord's Supper? 

It certainly would be right in such a case for the sisters 
to take the Supper, giving thanks to God for the loaf and 
the wine. Their remembrance of the Lord's broken body 
and shed blood is certainly not conditioned upon the pres- 
ence of a man to lead for them. When a man is present, 
he certainly is the proper leader in the worship ; but when 
there is none, let the women worship for themselves in a 
humble way. E. G. S. 

WOMEN TEACHING MEN. 

Brother Seivell: (1) Is it wrong for a woman who is qualified to 
teach a class composed of men, women, and children? Please explain 
1 Tim. 2: 12. (2) Is it wrong for a brother in Christ to lead a sec- 
tarian Sunday school or prayer meeting where the organ is used? 



734 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

(1) I see no harm in a woman's taking a class and teach- 
ing it in a quiet sort of way. To teach a class off to itself 
is not teaching the whole church, but is very much like 
Priscilla helping to teach Apollos "the way of the Lord 
more perfectly." She and Aquila took him to one side, 
took him to himself, and taught him the truth, and he went 
on teaching it. I see very little difference in a woman's 
taking a class to itself and quietly teaching it. If a woman 
cannot teach that way, we would not know where she can 
teach. We think many good opportunities to teach the 
word of God are lost by opposing women's quietly teaching 
classes. 

(2) But for a brother to lead a sectarian Sunday school 
or prayer meeting, and that with an organ, is a very dif- 
ferent thing. If he teaches sectarianism, he has denied the 
faith and espoused error. If he teaches the plain truth of 
God's word, the bosses of that Sunday school will very 
quickly put him out of his job. So no permanent good can 
result in either case. The only way to success is to stand 
openly for the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth. Nothing is gained for truth by compromising with 
error. Men always come out best in the end by standing 
openly and firmly for truth. 

WOMEN PREACHING. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: The apostle Paul, in his first let- 
ter to the church of God at Corinth, says: "Let your women keep si- 
lence in the churches." Are we to understand by this that women 
are not permitted to preach the gospel of Christ? We will suppose a 
case. We have a well-informed lady in our midst; she is thrown off 
in a community where the gospel has never been preached; she 
preaches the gospel, persons hear, believe, and want to obey; she im- 
merses them and sets them to work after the apostolic order. Would 
this be allowable? 

We have no direct account in the New Testament of 
women's going and preaching the gospel. God always 
called men for that kind of business. In Acts 8: 4 we 
have the expression: "Therefore they that were scattered 
abroad went everywhere preaching the word." Some claim 
that this passage includes women. If we had accounts else- 
where of women going out and preaching, this would be a 
very reasonable conclusion ; but in the absence of plain cases 
where women are mentioned as preaching, we can see no 
evidence in this expression. We can never establish prin- 
ciples by supposing cases. So far as the work done in such 
a case as above supposed is concerned, if the persons heart- 
ily obeyed the gospel, it would certainly be all right to them. 
The validity of the gospel and of baptism does not depend 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 735 

upon the administrator. But whether women, according to 
the New Testament, should go out to do that kind of work 
or not, is a very different question. As we have no exam- 
ple of the kind, the safe way is not to venture upon it. 
Building upon the silence of the Bible is a very unsafe 
precedent in any matter. If public preaching were the 
proper work for women, God certainly would have made 
the matter plain, would have given us both precept and ex- 
ample for it, so that we would have been left in no uncer- 
tainty in regard to the matter. Paul speaks of women 
helping him in the gospel, but does not say they helped him 
to publicly proclaim the gospel to the world. Again, in his 
letter to Titus he requires that the aged women be teachers 
of good things, but immediately gives their sphere of teac 1 - - 
ing by adding: "That they may teach young women to be 
sober, to love their husbands," etc. This has nothing in it 
about public speaking before the world. Woman has a 
wonderful work to perform in the church of God, and ex- 
erts a powerful influence for good in her own private 
sphere ; but if she is to go into the pulpit to preach publicly, 
the word of God has failed to make plain that part of the 
Lord's will. 

A few devoted Christian women can build up the cause 
of truth in almost any neighborhood or community by talk- 
ing privately to their neighbors and getting them ready to 
hear the gospel ; and by the time* they are ready to hear, 
some man will come along to preach the gospel to them and 
baptize them. The Lord will send one at the proper time. 
Instances have occurred in which one Christian woman liv- 
ing in a community for a time has opened the way for 
preaching the word, and men have fallen in and preached 
for and baptized the people until congregations have been 
built up. The woman was the prime mover, but did not do 
the public preaching. This, we think, is in accordance 
with the New Testament order. E. G. S. 

WOMEN ASKING QUESTIONS. 

Brother Lipscomb: May women ask questions in the Bible class 
and not violate the following command? "Let your women keep si- 
lence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but 
they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 
And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home : 
for it is a shame for women to speak in the church." 

We do not think that she violates the command either 
asking or answering questions if she does it in a modest, 
becoming manner. D. L. 



736 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

WOMEN ADMINISTERING THE LORD'S SUPPER. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it scriptural for a sister to administer the 
Lord's Supper when no brother is present? 

All the administering the Supper is to give thanks for 
it, partake of it, and pass it to one another. All idea of 
formality and official authority connected with it is of man, 
not of God. Nothing is taught about women attending to 
it when men are not present. Men ought to be present; 
but my opinion is, when they are not, women alone may do 
it. Why should women be deprived of the blessings of 
service because men refuse to obey God? 

WOMEN TEACHING IN THE SUNDAY SCHOOL. 

Brother Lipscomb : I would be glad to have some information on 
the subject of women's speaking or teaching in the church. Do 
they have the right to be teachers in the Sunday school or not? If 
they do not, I would be glad to have all the information that you could 
give me. 

"As in all the churches of the saints, let the women keep 
silence in the churches : for it is not permitted unto them 
to speak; but let them be in subjection, as also saith the 
law. And if they would learn anything, let them ask their 
own husbands at home: for it is shameful for a woman to 
speak in the church." (1 Cor. 14: 34, 35.) I could not 
write that in plainer, simpler language. I would be foolish 
to attempt it. Read also* 1 Tim. 2 : 8-15. Yet women have 
the right to teach those who know less than themselves. 
Priscilla and Aquila taught Apollos. (Acts 18: 24-26.) 
So I am sure that a woman may teach the Bible to old or 
young, male or female, at the meetinghouse, at home, at a 
neighbor's house, on Sunday or Monday or any other day 
of the week, if they know less than she does, if she will do 
it in a quiet, modest, womanly way. I have seen wrongs 
done by women in a Sunday school ; I have seen wrongs 
done by them at home, in the parlor, the dining room, the 
kitchen. This does not mean she cannot do right in all of 
these places. She can do right in the Sunday school. 

Is it right for women to teach in the Sunday school? 

Yes, we think so, if they teach the truth. They are often 
especially fitted for that work. We know of nothing that 
would forbid it. Aged women are commanded to be teach- 
ers of good things, and we think younger women may do 
likewise. Women worked in the churches anciently, and 
we can see nothing forbidding it now. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 737 

WOMEN LABORING IN THE GOSPEL. 

Brother Lipscomb : Please explain Phil. 4: 3, 8 through the Gospel 
Advocate. 

They both mean just what they say. Some women had 
labored with Paul in the gospel. Priscilla had done it. 
Hundreds of others had. Every Christian woman must be 
a laborer in the gospel. She ought to be such in a modest, 
womanly way. We never heard of any making public 
speeches with Paul. I do not think any woman labors 
in the gospel that makes public speeches. She is working 
contrary to the gospel. A woman as a public speaker may 
create a little sensation and excitement for a time. It does 
harm in the long run. As evidence of this, where women 
speak publicly, religion has least hold on the people. 

Verse 8 tells plainly to follow what is good, honest, lovely, 
etc. But by what rule shall we judge? What is lovely and 
of good report to one is not to another ; so Paul in the next 
verse gives the rule by which we are to determine what is 
good and true and lovely. 'Those things, which ye have 
both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do." 
So Paul's teaching and example was the standard by which 
they were to judge, and no one is authorized to do anything 
save what Paul taught by precept or example. Governed 
by this rule, we will all think it a shame for a woman to 
speak in the public assembly. Yet every woman can be a 
laborer as those in the days of Paul in the gospel. She can 
labor with her own children first and her neighbors and 
neighbors' children. But our modern women think it is 
doing nothing to save their own and their neighbors' chil- 
dren. They go abroad, attend conventions, and let their 
children go to ruin. Paul's way is best, because his way 
is God's way. 

WOMEN, AS WELL AS MEN, MUST CONTRIBUTE. 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: As woman's work in the church is 
being investigated, I would ask one question: Is it right for all the 
sisters to contribute on the first day of the week in the Lord's treas- 
ury? I have heard sisters say: "Husband contributes, and that ex- 
cuses me." Do you think it does? It is written: "Let every one of 
you lay by him in store." If every one, then none are left out. I 
want to see this part of woman's work in operation, if possible, before 
I die. None are too poor to remember the widow's mite. 

It seems to me our sister answers these questions her- 
self; at least refers to the scripture that fully answers 
them. Every one, wife as well as husband, was required 
to bring an offering. According to ability it was required. 
The little of the poor is as much for all God's purposes as 
the much of the rich. Every woman and child should give 

24 



738 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

according to ability. A woman ought not to be so swal- 
lowed up in her husband as to have nothing distinct from 
him. He cannot serve God for her ; he cannot pray for her ; 
he cannot fast for her; he cannot sing for her, nor com- 
mune for her, nor believe for her, nor repent for her ; none 
the more can he contribute for her. Every one must serve 
God for himself or herself. D. L. 

WOMEN, WHAT "THOSE" DID IN PHIL. 4: 3. 

Brother Sewell: Please tell me what those women did as spoken of 
by Paul in Phil. 4: 3. 

The passage is this : "And I entreat thee also, true yoke- 
fellow, help those women which labored with me in the 
gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellow labor- 
ers, whose names are in the book of life." The passage 
does not tell what they did, only that they labored with 
him in the gospel. It may mean they assisted him in some 
financial way, by furnishing him a home and his living 
while he preached the gospel, as Lydia certainly did for a 
time; or it may mean that some of those sisters at Phi- 
lippi became teachers of the gospel in a quiet sort of way, 
as thousands of devout women do now — teaching the gos- 
pel to their children, their neighbors, in the family and so- 
cial circles of life. Godly, Christian women can and do 
accomplish much good in this way and lead many souls to 
Christ. But it cannot mean that they preached publicly, 
as he did himself; for he forbids women to speak in the 
church, in public assemblies. Women are, therefore, not 
permitted to speak, to preach to the public assemblies of 
the church ; but there are many things that earnest, good 
women can do in a modest, quiet, social way that do im- 
mense good in advancing and building up the cause of truth, 
and in some of these ways the women of Philippi labored 
with Paul in the gospel. But whenever women get into the 
pulpit, before a public, promiscuous assembly, they violate 
the positive command of God through Paul. These women 
did not do this. 

WOMEN AND EXPEDIENTS. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35; 1 Tim. 2: 
11, 12. Does the apostle mean that women should neither speak nor 
ask questions in the congregations now? Was it not meant only for 
the time at which he spoke? Do these commands apply to unmarried 
women? Should not unmarried women be allowed to preach? Do 
you not think it allowable to use human expedients when they are 
harmless and we see that they work well? 

I know no reason why it was wrong for women to speak 
or pray in public in the days of the Savior and right for 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 739 

them to do it now. It is true that the customs of society, 
to some extent, determine what is right and wrong in some 
cases. A woman ought not to do anything that would de- 
stroy her reputation for modesty and virtue, unless some 
plain command of God was involved ; that ought to be 
obeyed at all hazards. Woman's work in life is to bear 
and train children. No higher, holier, more sacred work 
has ever been committed to human beings. This is her 
chiefest work in life. If there were not a passage of scrip- 
ture on the subject except to indicate this, it would forbid 
her engaging in any work incompatible with this. Public 
speaking, engaging in any of the callings of life that de- 
mand a constant strain on the mind, a constant anxiety and 
care in reference to the public affairs of church or State, 
an excitement of the ambitions for place and power, not 
only destroy her taste for and cause her to neglect the home 
and family duties, the duties of wife and mother, but such 
a strain on the mind destroys the ability for childbearing. 
I have before me now a statistical article by an eminent 
New England physician, showing that the Puritan race, 
owing to the habits growing out of the aspiration of their 
women for public places and their consequent barrenness 
in childbearing. is threatened with annihilation. 

God intends to convert the world, to some extent, through 
the multiplication of those faithful to him and the dimin- 
ishing of those not obedient to him. This being true, 
among his children, women who most nearly fulfill the 
mission and position God intends them to hold will be the 
most prolific childbearers. A position or calling in life that 
militates against childbearing and rearing is not the one 
God designed for women. Unmarried women ought not to 
follow a course of life that unfits them for marriage and 
maternity. 

I believe it is wrong for woman to engage in any work 
or calling that is not in harmony with her life work, and 
that these passages of scripture are to be translated in har- 
mony with these truths.. Exceptional cases in the Jewish 
nation arose when some woman of strong faith was di- 
vinely called to a public work. I would not say no occasion 
could arise that would justify a woman's speaking in pub- 
lic. As a rule, it is wrong, hurtful to the moral, religious, 
and physical well-being of the human family. 

There is certainly no harm in using a harmless thing. 
But how do we know in religion when a thing is harmless 
and when it works well? Are we to make our judgment 
the standard to determine when things are harmless or 
when they work well ? That itself is to set aside the word 



740 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

of God, to reject it as the standard of right and substitute 
our own judgment instead; that is to reject God's law, is 
to be guilty of treason against God. 

Saul thought it was harmless to change the law to slay 
the cattle and oxen in Gilgal as a sacrifice to honor God 
instead of in the country of the Amalekites, as God or- 
dered. He thought it would work well, give God much 
more glory and honor to have a sacrifice to God than to 
have them a stench on the earth; but God thought other- 
wise. 

The pedobaptists think infant sprinkling harmless and 
that it works well. The orthodox all think the "mourning 
bench" harmless and that it works well. To conclude a 
departure from God's law is harmless shows that the heart 
has lost its respect for God and his law. 

Nothing works well that causes man to rely on human 
expedients instead of divine appointments; nothing works 
well that weans man away from God's ways, God's ap- 
pointments. The idea that we can work through human 
expedients arises from a feeling that we are not dependent 
upon God. God does not work through human expedients. 
He may overrule them to the destruction of those using 
them, but he does not work through them. For man to 
work through them is to work without God's help. For 
him to substitute them for God's approved ways is to drive 
God from our help. To work through God's appointments 
is to trust God, to work with God, to declare a dependence 
upon God. To use human expedients is to trust man, man's 
wisdom, is to disown and defy God, and always comes from 
a lack of dependence upon God or an ignorance of his ways. 

The great end of religion is to make men obey, submit 
to, honor God. No dovetailing human expedients into the 
worship or work of God has a tendency to make man trust 
God, depend upon or obey him, but the opposite. Hence it 
is all wrong. 

Certain things may be harmless as mere means to be 
used. Where God has ordained no means of doing, man 
may use such means as are placed in his reach ; but this is 
not using them in the work or worship ordained by God, 
but as personal means for our own convenience or comfort. 
In the work and worship appointed by God he has pro- 
vided all things needful and helpful, and he who teaches to 
alter, change, amend, or substitute is as guilty of sacrilege 
as when Uzza touched the ark of God with unhallowed 
hands. It is bad to educate ourselves in the direction of 
presumptuous tinkering with God's order. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 741 

WOMEN, "PLAITED HAIR," "GOLD," ETC. 

Brother Sewell: (1) On the first day of the week, when we meet 
to take the Lord's Supper, are we considered the church? If so, what 
does 1 Cor. 14: 34, 35 mean? How can a woman teach and be silent? 
They are "not permitted ... to speak [to utter words, to talk]. 
And if they will learn anything [anything about what?], let them ask 
their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak [to ut- 
ter words, to talk] in the church." (2) Is it a sin for women to wear 
plaited hair, gold rings, and pearls? If so, why do preachers' and 
elders' wives, and nearly all professing Christianity, wear such? 

(1) Yes; when a congregation of Christians meet to- 
gether to take the Lord's Supper on the first day of the 
week, it is certainly the church met together in the very 
sense of the passage referred to in 1 Cor. 14 : 34, 35, so far 
as the requirements and prohibitions of women in the mat- 
ter of speaking in the church are concerned. On all such 
occasions, when assembled for the purpose stated, women 
are required to keep silent. On such occasions all the 
church is together in one body, and whatever is said and 
done on such occasions is to the whole church, and in these 
meetings women are to keep silent. But in many of our 
churches they have another meeting on the first day of the 
week for the avowed purpose of teaching the word of God 
to the young and any others that will engage in these les- 
sons. At Tenth Street Church, in Nashville, part of the 
members and as many others as will meet together at ten 
o'clock, and after singing, the reading of the lesson, and 
prayer, the different classes take their places in different 
parts of the house, so that each class is entirely to itself as 
a class, and the lesson is gone over by each class and the 
teacher, just as if each class w T ere in a house to itself. Some 
of these classes are taught by sisters and some by brethren. 
But the sisters who teach these classes are as private in 
their work as if they were teaching at home. Most of one 
hour is spent in these lessons, and for the one purpose of 
teaching and studying the word of God. But even in this 
meeting, when all are together in one body, no woman makes 
a speech or public talk. They only talk in classes, when 
separate from all the rest, and are thus as private as was 
Priscilla when she and Aquila taught Apollos (Acts 18: 
26) ; and we regard this work just as proper as was hers. 
We do not regard this sort of work the same as when all 
the church is together and worshiping in a body. When 
the hour nears its close, the class work is closed, and at 
eleven o'clock the church assembles in one body and the 
regular service begins. In this service not a woman says a 
word, except in singing. We think all this is in harmony 
with the word of God ; and we think that when brethren 



742 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

oppose the teaching service till they break it up, as is some- 
times done, they are fanatics, laboring under a blind zeal 
for the establishment of human opinions and hobbies. If 
churches can find enough competent brethren that will teach 
all the classes, that is all well ; but that is seldom the case ; 
and when that fails and women teach classes, we think that 
all right alsQ. As to what women should ask their hus- 
bands, we suppose anything they want to learn in the way 
of practical duty and privilege in the matter of Christianity. 
(2) Regarding this matter, Paul, after expressing his 
desire that men pray in every place, "lifting up holy hands, 
without wrath and disputing," adds : "In like manner, that 
women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame- 
facedness and sobriety; not with braided hair, and gold or 
pearls or costly raiment; but (which becometh women pro- 
fessing godliness) through good works." (1 Tim. 2: 9, 
10.) This is as plain as it can be made, and comes from 
God ; and women ought to heed it, whether they be the 
wives of preachers or elders or not wives at all ; and if thev 
do not, they will certainly be held responsible before God. 
Nothing should be worn by either women or men simply as 
a worldly show or to make a gaudy display. Christians 
that want to make such displays need to take more lessons 
against worldly-mindedness and in humble-mindedness, and 
on how to be more spiritual-minded, both in the sight of 
God and man. 

WORD, HOW THE, A "DISCERNER OF THOUGHTS." 

Brother Lipscomb : Please give your views on Heb. 4 : 12. In 
what way or in what sense is the word "a discerner of the thoughts 
and intents of the heart?" Please give your views on Rom. 9: 11, 18- 
23; 11: 7,26; Eph. 1: 11, 18, 19; Acts 13: 48. 

I think it means the word of God excites and reveals the 
thoughts and intents of the heart in affording a rule of 
right of such nature as to call out the intents and purposes 
of the heart to the person himself and then to others. Rom. 
9: 11 means before Jacob and Esau were born God selected 
Jacob as the one he loved and through whom the blessing 
to the world would come. Verse 22 means God desired to 
make his power known to the world, and to do this he en- 
dured for a long while and with much forbearance the re- 
bellious Jews and Gentiles as vessels of wrath worthy of 
destruction. Then he brought it upon them in such a way 
that all could see his disposition and power to destroy those 
who rebelled against him. Verse 23 shows he desired to 
make known his forbearance and love to those who obeyed 
him, both Jew and Gentile, and in Christ Jesus he was do- 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 743 

ing this. Rom. 11 : 7 means Israel sought the blessings of 
God, but did not obtain it, because they sought it not 
through faith in God ; but those whom God chose, both Jews 
and Gentiles, obtained it. God chose those who obeyed 
him. In verse 26 all Israel means those who believed in 
him as Abraham did ; they constitute the true children of 
Abraham, and will be saved. Those of fleshly Israel and 
of the Gentiles who refuse to believe in him will be hard- 
ened and lost. Eph. 1: 11 says: In whom (Christ) we 
(believing Jesus) were made heirs, having been appointed 
in previous ages of the world according to the purpose of 
God, who works out all things according to the decisions of 
his own will. Verses 18, 19 say he prayed that the eyes of 
the heart, or the spiritual understanding, might be enlight- 
ened to understand what hopes were involved in their being 
called, and they should understand the greatness of the 
power he exercised in behalf of those who believed, and that 
power in our behalf would be exercised according to the 
rules by which his power in accomplishing other things was 
used. Acts 13 : 48 means all who were of such a frame 
of mind to accept Christ as the Savior believed on him. 
Persons with a certain frame of mind or disposition of 
heart will accept Christ. All these passages are much bet- 
ter understood by reading carefully their contexts. 

WORDS, WHAT ARE "IDLE?" 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Matt. 12: 36: "Every idle word 
that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of 
judgment." What does the word idle mean when used in this way? 

The next verse also adds: "For by thy words thou shalt 
be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. " 
James calls the tongue an unruly member. It brings peo- 
ple into many difficulties, and needs to be continually con- 
trolled by the word of God. The word idle in this passage 
evidently means useless and even injurious speech, words 
out of harmony with the pure character the Christian reli- 
gion requires people to form. Paul says to Christians: 
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, 
that ye may know how to answer each one." (Col. 4: 6.) 
This is a very expressive passage, and shows how careful 
Christians should be as to the character of their speech, 
their whole conversation, and see that they say nothing to 
any one out of harmony with the pure and acceptable will 
of God. Again, he says: "Let no corrupt speech proceed 
out of your mouth, but such as is good for edifying as the 
need may be, that it may give grace to them that hear." 
(Eph. 4: 29.) These passages show that all Christians 



744 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

should forever be on their guard as to the character of their 
conversation with their fellow men. Some Christians seem 
never to think or talk of anything that is noble or dignified. 
They seem to be fleshly-minded, and talk of fleshly things — 
things that are corrupting both to themselves and those to 
whom they talk. They mind only earthly things. All such 
conversation is corrupting, degrading, idle, useless, ruinous. 
Men love to talk about things they think most of and about. 
Hence the great importance of being spiritual-minded — 
think about the purity and dignity of things divine and 
things that will be edifying one to another. It is all-impor- 
tant that Christians should study the conversation of Christ 
and see if they can find anything low, fleshly, and degrading 
or demoralizing in his conversation at any time or under 
any circumstances, and then make him their exemplar and 
follow his steps. There are many who are recognized as 
Christians whose conversation will condemn them at the 
last day. Let all, therefore, be especially guarded and care- 
ful as to their speech. 

WORKING AND EATING. 

There is a man in our neighborhood who married a Christian lady, 
the daughter of a Christian man. They have been married about 
thirteen years. They have been assisted by the father of the woman 
ever since they first married. They have had no misfortune of any 
account. The woman economizes and works well, considering the 
means she has at hand. The man is stout, able-bodied as an ordinary 
man. He has no management, provides nothing. The woman does 
the providing as best she can. The man reads newspapers a great 
deal of his time, and whistles and hums, when he does not know where 
the next meal will come from. Now they are in absolutely destitute 
circumstances and want help. What would you do about the matter 
if you were in the place of the woman's father? 

I take it the man is not a member of the church. If he 
was, the law of the Lord is : "If a man will not work, neither 
shall he eat." This was a command Paul gave in person 
to the church at Thessalonica, and then repeated it in 2 
Thess. 3 : 10. It is wrong to feed a member of the church 
that will not work. There is certainly no great obligation 
resting on us to feed a man not a Christian who will not 
work. Then I would try to so arrange as to feed my daugh- 
ter and tell the man to work or do some healthy fasting. 
This would be right in the sight of God. 

WORKS, "THE FIRST." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: In Rev. 2: 5 we have this lan- 
guage: "Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and re- 
pent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, 
and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent." 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 745 

What are the first works here referred to? I wish to state a case, 
then ask you some questions. A member of the church had a croquet 
party at his house yesterday. At the party was one elder and one 
deacon, with their children. The players were the elder, the brother 
at whose house the party was, and two young sisters. This brother 
at whose house the party was is held in high esteem. Is playing 
croquet a Christian duty? If so, ought not all the brethren and sis- 
ters to engage in it? Can they neglect it and be blameless? Ought 
not the elders (old men) to be examples for good to the younger mem- 
bers? 

The first ivorks spoken of mean the works from which 
they had fallen and for which he tells them to repent, and 
that was their first love. They had left that off, had neg- 
lected it, and he lets them know that unless they repent he 
will remove the candlestick out of its place — will bring to 
naught the church at Ephesus. No man can live the Chris- 
tian without true and genuine love to God and love to his 
brethren and even his enemies. Paul, in 1 Cor. 13, shows 
that without charity, which means love, all things else that 
a Christian may do will be in vain. As Christians, we 
should all heed the warning and see that we love God with 
all the heart and strength, and that we learn to love the 
work that he has required of us. 

Croquet parties are mere worldly amusements, and many 
good Christians and some people of the world think it is 
inconsistent with the Christian religion, and on this ac- 
count those who practice it wound the feelings of some of 
their brethren and cast a stumbling-block in the way of the 
world, and in these regards certainly do harm. No Chris- 
tian ever made himself or any one else more devoted to 
Christian duty nor to love the Lord more by such worldly 
amusements. To-day the very best that can be said is: 
It is of doubtful propriety so far as Christians are con- 
cerned. Everybody knows it is not a Christian duty ; while, 
on the other hand, everybody knows there is a safe side to 
it, and that is to let it alone. It is better to let everything 
alone that is even of doubtful propriety ; and it is perfectly 
certain that the overseers of a congregation can set a better 
example for their flock than by engaging in croquet parties. 
All Christians ought to strive to get so much of the love of 
God in their souls that it will crowd out such worldly amuse- 
ments. In things of this sort all ought to be like the 
preacher who said his religion gave him "no dance." God 
has given us enough to do to keep us busy if we will do it, 
and by so doing we prepare ourselves for immortality. 

E. G. S. 



746 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

WORLD, WAS THE, CREATED OUT OF NOTHING? 

Do you regard that the Bible teaches that this world was created 
out of nothing? 

The primitive, proper use of the word create is to bring 
into being, to make something out of nothing. Its second- 
ary meaning is to give a new nature, character; to shape 
or to change one nature, or shape, into a different one. 
This is more correctly the use of the term mahe, or shape ; 
yet the distinction is not kept up in the Scriptures. The 
word create is frequently used to indicate a transforma- 
tion, a reshaping into something of a different nature, use, 
form, and character. Without laying any particular stress 
upon it, we have been accustomed to regard its use in Gen. 
1 : 1 and corresponding passages as in the original and true 
sense. This is fully as consonant with all ideas of reason 
or probability as to suppose the eternity of matter existing 
under innumerable changes. Difficulties on this subject 
arise only in man's presumptuous claims that he has dis- 
covered laws that have limited the divine power. In other 
words, man assumes that he is wise enough to know what 
God can and cannot do where God has imposed no limita- 
tions on himself or has revealed none to men. The expres- 
sion, in the beginning, as used in the Bible, clearly refers 
to a period long antedating the present order of affairs as 
measured by men's existence. "In the beginning was the 
Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was 
God. The same was in the beginning with God. All 
things were made by him." (John 1: 1-3.) Here the 
same expression is used, and clearly refers to a period an- 
tedating the present cosmos, or order. As to how long that 
period described as chaos continued to exist before it was 
developed into cosmos, the Bible gives no clue, and science 
(so called) is a reckless guesser. We do not understand, 
either, that absolute chaos ruled ; but it was an order not 
in harmony with the present cosmos. When the language 
of the Bible is rightly understood, we believe it is literally 
true; and no fact has ever been or ever will be discovered 
that contradicts it. Science used to be knowledge classi- 
fied. It was cautious, long at investigations, painstaking, 
slow at reaching conclusions. These conclusions were 
stereotyped and unchangeable. Now science (so called) is 
the wild and reckless, ever-changing guesses, upon inade- 
quate ground, of men lacking in all the elements of charac- 
ter essential to true scientific research. No Bible truth 
has anything to fear from science, only people must be pa- 
tient for true Science to issue her decisions. Science is 
never in a hurry, nor does it court popular eclat. 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 747 

WORLD, HOW LONG THE, CREATED BEFORE MAN. 

Brother Lipscomb: Please explain how long the world was created 
before man was created. Some claim that the world was created 
thousands of years before man was created. 

I have no means of knowing how long the world was cre- 
ated before man was created. The Bible does not tell. It 
only says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and 
the earth," and that afterwards he created the plants and 
the animals, and, last of all, man. But it gives no intima- 
tion how long the earth was created before these other 
things were. The same expression, in the beginning, is 
used in John 1 : 1-3 : "In the beginning was the Word, and 
the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . 
All things were made by him." In this passage it shows 
in the beginning dates back of the creation of the world ; 
for the Word, who became the Christ, was with God and 
afterwards created the world. Men claim to be able to 
prove it existed a great while before man was created by 
the strata and other formations of the earth; but I have 
studied these theories with some care and must say that 
the conclusions are unreliable. 

WORLD, WHAT, IN MATT. 28: 20. 

Please notice Eph. 4: 30: "Grieve not the holy Spirit of God." 
Also, Matt 28: 20: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the 
world." What world is meant? 

The present order of affairs, we think, is meant. We do 
not understand it as implying the miraculous powers of the 
Spirit should be with the disciples ; but the miracles should 
show it of God, then he would promise to be with them to 
the end .of the world. After his fixed laws were made 
known, he acted no longer through miracles, but through 
the laws. The Spirit works through the law, and we grieve 
him by refusing to obey the law. The Spirit gave the law. 
The law is the teaching of the Spirit. 

WORLD, HOW THE, PEOPLED AFTER CAIN. 

Brother Lipscomb: How was the world peopled after Cain was 
banished? Whom did Cain marry, or of what race did Cain marry? 
Of what race did his brothers and sisters intermarry? 

Our guess would be that Adam and Eve had at least nine 
hundred children born to them. They were vigorous and 
prolific, and may have frequently been blessed with twins, 
and largely increased this number. Adam lived till near 
the time of Noah's birth. Each of these children, vigorous 
and prolific, probably was the parent of as many more. 



748 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

The family of Adam before his death must have been a 
myriad of people. When Cain went into the land of Nod, 
they, doubtless, numbered thousands. Adam's children, of 
course, intermarried, as was done among the patriarchs 
down to the days of Abraham. Abraham and Sarah had 
the same father. Hence, he said to Abimelech: "Sarah is 
my sister." 

The great trouble in these matters is that people consider 
that all the children and descendants of Adam are men- 
tioned in the Bible, while only the chosen line from which 
the Savior sprung is mentioned. Abel was the chosen line. 
He was slain, and then Seth was born after the death of 
Abel. We presume Cain is mentioned only because he slew 
Abel. So of succeeding generations. Only those are men- 
tioned which came in contact with the line of the Savior. 
They were grown, and numbers of others may have been 
older than they. We put a construction on things of this 
kind and create the difficulties ourselves. We judge all 
things by our experience, and so form our ideas of what is 
common and proper and make no allowance for different 
surroundings. D. L. 

WORLD, DEALING IN INSTITUTIONS OF THE. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it wrong for a Christian to be a stockholder 
in a banking institution which charges more than the legal rate of 
interest? Is it wrong for a Christian to be a bookkeeper or a cashier 
in a bank of this description? Is it wrong for a Christian to deposit 
money in a bank of this kind? 

Usury, as we call it, is unlawful interest. As it is used 
in the Bible, it means any increase or pay for the use of 
anything. Hire for a horse or rent for land is as much 
usury as pay for the use of money. The Bible prohibits 
taking usury only from the poor. But the Scriptures com- 
mand Christians to be subject to "the powers that be." The 
civil authorities are "the powers that be." The laws of 
Tennessee say you shall not charge over six per cent per 
annum. To violate the law of the land is to violate the law 
of God and is sin, and any participation in or encourage- 
ment of this is sin. All business with a man or an institu- 
tion that does wrong is not wrong. If so, you must go out 
of this world. In trading with them, it may profit them; 
but if it is not done to help it on, it is not necessarily sin- 
ful. If a man borrows money and pays usurious interest 
to pay a debt he owes, I do not think he sins, although it 
may profit the usurious lender. So if a man deposits with 
a bank for his own good, although it may profit the bank, 
it is not necessarily a sin on his part. So I would say it is 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 749 

sinful to violate the laws by charging more than lawful in- 
terest. His doing it through a company or corporation 
does not lessen the sin. It is, sinful to any way so partici- 
pate in it as to encourage and partake of the wrong. It is 
not wrong to deal with one who does wrong for our good, 
even if it incidentally helps the usurious lender. I think 
these are correct principles, and each can apply it to him- 
self and his course. 

WORM, THE, THAT "DIES NOT." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sew ell: What is meant in the last verse 
of the last chapter of Isaiah? The same occurs in Mark 9 three 
times. 

The verse in Isaiah is as follows : "And they shall go forth, 
and look upon the carcasses of the men that have trans- 
gressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither 
shall their fire be quenched ; and they shall be an abhorring 
unto all flesh." These passages plainly have reference to 
the final doom of the wicked, and show beyond a peradven- 
ture that their punishment will be without end. The world 
is becoming full of infidelity in all its varied forms, from 
atheism down through all the varied forms of materialism, 
soul sleeping, spiritualism, universalism, etc. And in a 
large majority of instances where men disbelieve the Bi- 
ble, or claim to do so, it is because they are unwilling to 
yield themselves to its requirements and want an excuse for 
not doing so. In such cases you might about as well talk 
to the wind as to argue with them on the subject. They 
are infidels of choice, and infidels they will be. The use of 
the passage by the Savior in Mark leaves not a doubt but 
that it refers to the future punishment of the wicked, and 
that the punishment is everlasting. Materialists, soul 
sleepers, and other forms of unbelief have long tried to 
take the idea of eternal punishment of the wicked out of 
such passages ; but they have never yet made a respectable 
showing in the matter. E. G. S. 

"WORSHIP" AND "SERVICE." 

Brother Lipscomb: Will you please explain the difference between 
the service of God and the worship of God? Can we not consistently 
use such helps as Sunday-school literature, maps, and charts in our 
Sunday school and at the same time condemn all innovations in the 
worship, such as organs, etc.? 

Worship more specially refers to praise, prayer, adora- 
tion, and thanksgiving; service, to obedience to the law of 
God in carrying out his will in the world. It has always 
been difficult to draw the line between service and worship. 



750 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

It is especially difficult under Christ, inasmuch as all service 
must spring from faith in and love to God, and so becomes 
an expression of praise and honor to him. The same rule 
governs both — that is, we must both worship and serve God 
in his own appointments, and not through man's inventions. 
What might be termed mere aids to either worship or serv- 
ice is allowable. A hymn book is an aid to the service of 
song. A printed Bible is an aid to the study of God's will. 
This is worship. The steamship and railroad are aids to 
the spread of the gospel. It is allowable to use them. An 
organ is the introduction of a different element into the 
worship, not authorized by Christ or the apostles. It really 
does not aid the song. The singing is just the same with 
it as without it. The sound of the organ may drown the 
discordant notes or displace the song. It does not change it. 

A Sunday school, as a human organization distinct from 
the church, is wrong. To teach the old or young by read- 
ing and studying the word of God, asking and answering 
questions, has full divine authority and sanction. It has 
the sanction of the word of God much more fully than the 
ordinary textuary sermonizing has. The lesson leaf and 
map are nothing but a comment upon the word of God, 
making explanations of words, allusions — historical, geo- 
graphical, and literary — and comparing scripture with 
scripture so as to bring out its true meaning. This is the 
true object of all preaching or teaching, vocal or written. 
A man or a teacher gets up to preach. His work is to ex- 
plain the terms, the allusions, the circumstances under 
which it is spoken, and to compare one passage with an- 
other so as to bring out and make clear the meaning of the 
scripture. This is proper preaching. This is what is done 
in a commentary. This is what is done in the lesson leaves. 
If oral comment on scripture to make it plain is right, so is 
written. 

A human addition to the worship or work is one thing, 
and always a wrong thing. A help to get at the work or 
worship is wholly a different thing, concerning which God 
has given no direction, and man is left to use such facilities 
as are offered to enable him to do the work. God has or- 
dained his church, with its God-ordained organs, as the 
ground and pillar of the truth. It is to maintain, support, 
vindicate the truth. When man pronounces this ineffi- 
cient and tries to invent a substitute for it, he is presump- 
tuous before God. When God ordains, we should sing and 
make melody in our hearts to the Lord ; and if we add life- 
less instruments, we are guilty of presumption before God. 

When the church of God's own appointment calls the 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 751 

young and old together to study God's word by reading and 
asking and answering questions, it does God's will. When 
those who study and understand the word of God by voice 
or pen explain that word to others, they do the will of God. 
It seems that this distinction is plain. D. L. 

WORSHIP, "FAMILY." 

Where the father of a family refuses to have family worship after 
being often entreated by his wife to do so, and where the wife feels 
that such worship must be held in order to rear their children right 
and to honor God, is it wrong for the wife and mother to conduct the 
worship? 

I not only think it would not be wrong, but I believe it is 
the mother's duty in such circumstances to take her chil- 
dren quietly to a private room, to read the Bible and teach 
it to them, and to pray with and for them. It is the duty 
of both the father and the mother to teach the word of God 
to their children, to pray with and for them, and to bring 
them up "in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." If 
one of them fails or refuses to do his or her part in the 
work, it lays the other under the double obligation to do it, 
lest the children be neglected and lost. Do it modestly and 
quietly, but do it faithfully and persistently. Your chil- 
dren are entitled to this training and instruction at your 
hands. 

WORSHIP, CALLING ON BAPTISTS AND METHODISTS 
TO TAKE PART IN. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it in harmony with God's word to call on a 
Baptist or a Methodist to take a leading part in the worship? 

We find neither Baptists nor Methodists nor modern 
services in the Bible. We do find sectarians and partisans 
in contact with the worship of God. And while Christ and 
the apostles clearly and plainly taught them the will of 
God and the error of their way, we do not remember a sin- 
gle instance in which they objected to those persons unit- 
ing in or taking part in the worship of God. Can any one 
remember such an example? If so, I would be glad to hear 
of it. The one great leading purpose of God with reference 
to the human family was and is to make and keep them 
one — a united, harmonious band of brethren, working to- 
gether for the good and well-being of all. This would be 
a happy and joyful condition for all. It would go far to- 
ward changing this earth into heaven. To bring about and 
maintain this union among men, he required that they 
should be one in and with God, the unchangeable, the "I 
am that I am." It seems to me the Spirit of God and the 



752 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

gospel ought to look after, find, and encourage the good 
that all have, and, with that good as a leaven of righteous- 
ness, to lead on to a higher and more perfect good. Chris- 
tians ought to stand firm for the truth they hold, and seek 
every possible opportunity to worship with and teach all 
worthy to be taught. That was the way of Jesus and the 
apostles. It ought to be our way. When another leads in 
prayer, we do not join with him in unscriptural prayer. 
We unite with him only in that which is scriptural. Let 
us pray to please God. Let us be firm for the truth and 
help our fellow men to a better life. If they pray for things 
not pleasing to God, let us kindly and plainly tell them and 
teach them the right way. We cannot drive men to God ; 
we must win them through love and kindness. Let us get 
closer to our fellow men and not drive them from us. 

WORSHIPING TOGETHER, WHITE AND COLORED. 

Brother Lipscomb: While I was holding a meeting at Cedar 
Grove, Humphreys County, Tenn., a little girl, one-eighth negro and 
about fourteen years of age, came forward, confessed Christ, and was 
baptized. Now, as there is no negro congregation in that community, 
where should she worship? Should the white members fellowship 
her, or should she be deprived of worshiping God? 

I have never found any sanction or authority in the 
Scriptures for different churches in the same community 
for different races of people. In the days of Jesus and the 
apostles the antipathy and antagonism existing between 
the Jews and the Gentiles were as great as that now ex- 
isting between the white race and the negro race. I find no 
intimation or suggestion of separate congregations for the 
two antagonistic races. On the other hand, it is distinctly 
stated that his mission was to make of the two races one 
body in Jesus. I believe that is the only correct course to 
follow in any and all other ages. The race antagonisms 
would sometimes cause difficulties in the churches. Every 
difficulty rightly settled helps a church; every one avoided 
or wrongly treated injures it. The negro should have 
learned modesty and deference in the church, and the 
whites should have learned forbearance and helpfulness to- 
ward the negro, and they ought to live together in one 
church. Whatever we do to the least disciple of Christ, 
we do to him. If we refuse to recognize as a brother or 
sister the most despised of his disciples, we refuse to own 
him. I doubt if one who refuses to fellowship and encour- 
age and help one who is his disciple because he or she is of 
another race can be saved. "Inasmuch as ye have done it 
unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it 
unto me." (Matt. 25: 40.) As we treat the lowliest and 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 753 

humblest of his children, we treat him. If we refuse to 
fellowship Christ or to treat him as a brother or a sister, 
can we hope to be saved ? 

WORSHIPING WITH THOSE IN WHOM WE HAVE NO 
CONFIDENCE. 

Brother Lipscomb : Is it right for one who professes to be a Chris- 
tian to meet and worship with a man (brother) in whom he has no 
confidence? Is a church in the discharge of its duty when it puts 
men forward as congregational teachers who are not of good report? 

A brother frequently loses confidence in his brother when 
the fault is his own instead of his brother's. He frequently 
is influenced more by his own prejudices and bitter feelings 
than by the acts of others. It is harder to forgive one we 
have injured than one who has injured us. A brother 
ought to be very careful that he does not do a brother in- 
justice when he loses confidence in him. I would have more 
confidence in the unprejudiced judgment of my brethren 
than in my own when I was excited by bitter feelings. It 
is not a good indication when a man sets up his own judg- 
ment concerning a man against that of his whole brethren. 
I presume if no one ever met and worshiped save when he 
did it with those in whose character he had full confidence, 
few would ever meet and worship. The Savior worshiped 
with Judas. Few are worse than he, none better than the 
Savior. 

The overseer of a congregation ought to be of good re- 
port of those without. Still, any member of a church has 
the right to exhort and admonish his brethren. But few 
pass through the world who never excite reproach, justly or 
unjustly; but one who is not generally esteemed by a com- 
munity, not without serious reproach, should not be put 
forward as the teacher of the congregation. A person who 
is excited by personal animosity is not a competent judge 
always in reference to the character a man bears in the 
community. We ought to try to moderate our feelings by 
a just judgment and learn to judge others with kindness, 
knowing with what judgment we judge we shall be judged. 
We all have faults, and we must not lose confidence in a man 
because he has faults and sometimes does wrong. If we 
are limited to perfect teachers, we will have none. D. L. 

WRATH, HOW BY NATURE CHILDREN OF. 

Brother Sewell: Please explain Eph. 2: 3 — "by nature children of 
wrath." 

If you take the first three verses of that chapter together, 
the meaning is plain. Here are the three verses: "And 
you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your 



754 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

trespasses and sins, wherein ye once walked according to 
the course of this world, according to the prince of the 
powers of the air, of the spirit that now worketh in the sons 
of disobedience ; among whom we also all once lived in the 
lusts of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the 
mind, and were by nature the children of wrath, even as 
the rest." (Revised Version.) The apparent trouble that 
comes up regarding this passage and others of like nature 
arises from the false theory that is propagated by theolo- 
gians. This is the theory of hereditary total depravity, 
which is that Adam's sins were transmitted to the whole 
human race, and that, therefore, all are born sinners. If 
this theory is true, then all that are born into the world are 
sinners and under the wrath of God till convicted and con- 
verted by an abstract operation of the Holy Spirit. Pedo- 
baptists claim that when they baptize infants, this sin of 
depravity is taken away, and that they can then serve God 
and be saved at last by faithfulness when they become re- 
sponsible. This class of theologians apply the expression, 
were by nature the children of wrath, to all who have not 
been relieved from this depravity that they say inheres in 
all till they have been regenerated. But the trouble is, this 
claim of total hereditary depravity is nowhere expressed or 
taught in the word of God. It is merely a human opinion. 
The word nature in this passage has no reference to any 
sort of inability to serve God, but to the general practice of 
sin on the part of those who reject the gospel. The lives 
of all such are sinful and exposed to the wrath of God. 
Hence the word nature only has reference to lives that are 
habitually sinful — a continual life of sin — just the sort of 
lives the Ephesians are said in this passage to have lived 
before they became Christians. They became sinners 
through their own trespasses, not by being born sinners. 
Hence, infants are not sinners and need no baptism to free 
them from a state of sin. The Bible nowhere says they 
were born sinners. It is only human theology that says so. 
All that will study these three verses will see that only 
those who commit sin are sinners. The word of the Lord 
says: 'The face of the Lord is against them that do evil/' 
(1 Pet. 3 : 12.) Infants do no evil ; hence there is no wrath 
against them. 

"YOKED UNEQUALLY." 

Brethren Lipscomb and Sewell: Please give us an explanation of 
2 Cor. 6: 14: "Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers." 
Does this passage have any reference to a Christian's marrying an un- 
believer? 



BY LIPSCOMB AND SEWELL. 755 

To be yoked together is to be so connected as to be com- 
pelled to walk together in such a manner that the walk and 
conduct of one is necessarily influenced by the walk and 
conduct of the other. Wherever a relationship of this kind 
exists between a Christian and an unbeliever, they are un- 
equally yoked together. The marriage relation is certainly 
of this character. So also are all the associations in which 
a Christian is controlled by the actions of others and made 
responsible for the deeds of others. 

In the marriage relation the Christian has many duties 
to perform that would greatly be hindered or prevented by 
the conduct of the other party. 

Outside of this scripture, it is plainly contrary to the 
spirit and letter of the teachings of the Bible that Chris- 
tians should marry those without. Paul says of the widow : 
"Let her marry whom she will, only in the Lord." He 
here merely applies a general law to the widow. The same 
truth and principle are clearly taught in the prohibition of 
Jewish marriages with those of other nations, and the evils 
resulting therefrom are recorded for our warning. D. L. 

ZECHARIAH, A PASSAGE OF, ATTRIBUTED TO JERE- 
MIAH. 

A sister asks us to explain why a scripture is in the New 
Testament attributed to Jeremiah which is found only in 
Zechariah. 

There are two explanations of this. First, it was a mis- 
take made by some one in copying the New Testament. 
Some of the oldest translations have Zechariah instead of 
Jeremiah; others have neither name, but simply as said 
by the prophet, without telling which. Another explana- 
tion is, the Bible was divided into three parts: (1) The 
law, covering the books of Moses and the historic books ; 
(2) The Psalms, beginning with The Psalms and going 
down to Jeremiah; (3) the portion beginning with Jere- 
miah, including all the prophets, went by the name Jere- 
miah, and all the prophetic scriptures were quoted as a part 
of Jeremiah. This was quoted in this way. We think the 
difficulty arose from a misquotation by some of the earliest 
copyists, and it has been retained. 

Now, one word about the contradictions and mistakes 
found in the Bible. Many of them arise from our igno- 
rance. Take the two tables of the genealogy of Jesus 
Christ. This difference could not have been unknown to 
the writers and compilers of the New Testament. If they 
had been trying to palm off a falsehood, they never would 
have given the two different lists. They knew they were 



756 QUERIES AND ANSWERS, 

easily explained by those knowing the methods of compil- 
ing these records, and so gave them to the world without 
explaining. They are comparatively unimportant matters, 
and are left for man to examine and reason out, or to ac- 
cept them on faith, not knowing how to explain them. The 
evidences are clear and sufficient to any heart willing to be 
convinced outside of these that the Bible is of God ; and 
when we cannot understand how certain things are, it is 
wise to say, "I do not understand that," and look to the 
testimonies elsewhere. Christians who believed the Bible 
discovered these discrepancies and differences, but they did 
not destroy faith in a single earnest statement of the Bible. 
The infidels learned these things through the labors and 
studies of Christians. After Christians tell of 'them, infi- 
dels point them out as wonderful. A man who honestly 
studies the Bible closely enough to find out these discrepan- 
cies learns enough of it to be compelled to believe it is of 
God, despite his inability to understand how it can be. 
There are two spirits in which the Bible is studied. One 
has a sense of its own weakness and a reverence for God ; 
the other comes in a flippant, egotistic, self-sufficient spirit, 
without reverence for God or his power. The spirit in 
which the truth is approached decides the conclusion 
reached. In copying the Bible through fifteen hundred 
years, some mistakes were made in minor and unimpor- 
tant particulars, as in all other books. Reverence for God 
leads men to seek to purge out all these mistakes. Flip- 
pant self-importance magnifies them to exalt self and dis- 
honor God. All criticism to purify the word of God is to 
be encouraged. Criticism for selfish ends brings no good 
to any being in the universe. We accept uninspired books 
as historically true, despite many such grosser errors and 
discrepancies than those found in the Bible. The Bible 
comes to us with a hundredfold more testimony, both inter- 
nal and external, as a truthful record, than does any unin- 
spired writing of the ancients. Why not accept it as read- 
ily as we do these? 

I do not write this as reflecting on our querist, but as 
showing the respect that is due the Bible and the unreason- 
able spirit of those who find fault with it. D. L. 



INDEX 



Abel, why accepted, and not Cain 5 

Abraham, the promise to 5 

Abraham, the two sons of 6 

Accursed from Christ, Paul wishes himself 8 

Adam, condition of, before the fall 8 

Added, what "things" shall be? 9 

Adding to and taking from the Bible 10 

Adventists and the children of Israel 11 

Agent, how is man a free? 12 

"All things to all men" 13 

Altar, place of the golden 13 

Ambassadors, are there any now? 14 

Angels, office of 15 

Angels rejoicing and future recognition 17 

Anointed, when was Christ? 17 

Anointing with oil and prayer 18 

Antichrist, the spirit of 19 

Antichrist, who is he? 20 

Apostles, were they baptized? 21 

Apostles, when inspired 23 

Ark, how long in building 23 

Article, the definite, in Greek 23 

Ascension, Christ's 24 

Asking, seeking, knocking 25 

"At hand," meaning of 25 

Balaam, the case of 26 

Ball playing, is it conforming to the world? 27 

Band, joining a brass, etc. 29 

Baptism in the name of Christ 30 

Baptism, formula in 32 

Baptism and pardon 32 

Baptism, what for? 36 

Baptism, necessity of 36 

Baptism, can man be saved without? 38 

Baptism in lieu of circumcision 40 

Baptism, the, of 1 Cor. 12: 13 40 

Baptism, is it sprinkling? 41 

Baptism, because of remission 42 

Baptism, Holy Ghost 42 

Baptism, with Spirit and fire 43 

Baptism that puts men into Christ 44 

Baptism, must one know it is for remission before being baptized? 45 

Baptism, why not it and the Lord's Supper nailed to the cross?__ 47 

Baptism, how Baptists baptize? 49 

Baptistery, is it wrong to have a? 50 

Baptists, how receive them 51 

Baptists, joining, to be with his wife 53 

Baptize, who may 53 

Baptized, not being, was he lost? . 54 

Baptizing "in" the name and "into" the name 55 



758 INDEX. 

Baptized with the Holy Spirit, were the "one hundred twenty?" 56 

Believing "into" Christ 57 

"Better thing," what? 58 

Bible, science, and Joshua's command to the sun and moon 60 

Birth, the new (John 3: 8) 61 

Births, one or two, in John 3: 5? 62 

Bishop, must a, be married? 63 

Blasphemy, what is? 63 

Blessings, conditions of God's 65 

Blind, who are the? 68 

Blood, how Christ's, cleanses 68 

Blood, eating 69 

Body of Christ, dividing the 69 

Body, presenting the, a sacrifice 70 

Bones, resurrection of dry 71 

Born of God, when is a man? 71 

Born of God and sinning not ,__ 77 

Bread, the, used in the Supper 79 

Break bread, what time of day should disciples? 79 

Cain and Abel, how did, know what to do? 84 

Cain's offering rejected, why? 85 

Called to preach, who are? 86 

"Calling wherein he was called," how abide in? 87 

Catechism, a, answered 89 

Catholics, the, and the Bible 90 

"Chance," does 1 Pet. 4: 5, 6 teach another? 92 

"Chariot," who commanded the, to stop? 93 

Charity, what is? 93 

Checkers, etc., playing 94 

"Child one hundred years old" 94 

Christ's birthday 95 

Christ, forsaking all for 95 

Christ, how do we get into? 96 

Christ's eternal existence 96 

Christ, who crucified? 97 

Christ, what day crucified? 100 

Christians should settle their differences among themselves, not 

in civil courts 101 

Christians, providing for relatives 102 

Christians, things they should not do 103 

"Christian Church," the term 105 

Christmas trees 107 

Church, is one, as good as another? 107 

Church, is one, as good as another? — again 111 

Church, are all Christians members of the? 115 

Church, the attending to, business on the Lord's day 115 

Church, the, not civil courts 115 

Church, the, and secret societies 116 

Church, the, in Matt. 18: 17 117 

Church, foundation of the 117 

Church, the establishment of the 118 

Church, withdrawing from a 119 

Church, should an individual withdraw from the? 120 

Churches, constitution and order of 122 

Circumcision, how nothing 127 

Collection, the, on the first day of the week 129 

Collection, how to be taken 129 

Coming, the second, of Christ 130 

Commandment, breaking one 131 



INDEX. 759 

Commandments, are the Ten, still in force? 132 

Common, all things in ■__ 132 

"Conceived in sin," how 133 

Confessed, when must Christ be? 133 

Confession, is it essential? 135 

Confession, is there a formal? 136 

Confession of sin 136 

Confession of sin, must it be public? 137 

Conscience vs. conscience 138 

Contradiction, no 141 

Contribution, the Lord's-day 141 

Contribution, is it binding on the first day of the week? 142 

Cooperate, how churches 142 

Cooperation, church 145 

Cooperation, a plan of, church 147 

Corinthians, fifth chapter of First 149 

Cornelius and the Jews' religion 150 

Covenant, when did the old, end? 151 

Cup, the, at the Lord's Supper 152 

Customs, Paul observing Jewish 152 

Dancing, is it wrong? 153 

Dancing, evil effects of 154 

Dancing, the, to be condemned 156 

Day, the, of the Lord * 157 

Day, the, in Heb. 10: 25 157 

Day, why meet every first? 158 

Days, length of creation 158 

Days, the "three," and "three nights" 159 

Deacons, the work of 162 

Deacon, office of 163 

Deacons, must they be married 164 

Dead, baptized for the 164 

Dead, the quickened 166 

Dead, gospel preached to the 167 

Dead, who to "bury their dead?" 169 

Death, day of, better than the day of birth 170 

Death, is there but one in Rom. 5: 17? 171 

Death, between, and the resurrection 171 

Death, sin unto : 172 

December, the twenty-fifth of 172 

Degrees in heaven 173 

Demons, possessed of 174 

Denominations, Christians in 174 

Denominations, receiving persons from 176 

Denominations, "other" 178 

Devil, was the, an angel? 179 

Devil, condemnation of the 179 

Discipline, church 180 

Discipline, a case of wrong 181 

Divisions, heresies, etc. 183 

Divorce and marriage again 184 

Divorce and separation 185 

Doctrine, the form of 186 

Doctrine, the principles of the, etc. 188 

Door of the sheep 189 

Drawing all men to him, Christ 190 

Eating flesh, breaking bread, etc. 190 

Eating, what meant by, in 1 Cor. 5: 11? 192 

Elders 194 



760 INDEX. 

Elders, their qualifications 196 

Elders, their appointment 199 

Elders, must they and deacons be married? 204 

Elders, the duty of 205 

Elders, evangelists, appointive 205 

Elder, is the preacher of a church one? . 206 

Elders, whisky, and dancing 208 

Elders, their jurisdiction 209 

Elect, the 210 

Elect, God's 210 

Election, foreordination, predestination 211 

Emblems, who must prepare the? 213 

End, from the beginning, does God see the? 213 

Endor, was Samuel called up by the witch of? 215 

Eph. 4: 13-16 215 

Evangelists, authority of 216 

Evil, did God create? 217 

"Evil spirit," how "from God?" 218 

Evil, how "resist not?" 219 

Extortion 220 

Ezek. 37 221 

Faith, how "the substance of things hoped for?" 222 

Faith, the, that healed the cripple 222 

Faith, the, that purifies 223 

Fallen women, duty of the church toward 224 

"Falling away," meaning of 226 

Fan, wheat and chaff 227 

Fasting, Christians 228 

Fasting and prayer 229 

Fasting and agreeing with one's adversary 230 

"Fellows," who "his," etc. 231 

Fellowship, hand of 232 

Fellowship, shall they withdraw? 233 

Festivals and majority rule, etc. 234 

"Filled all the house," what, on Pentecost? 234 

Fire, the man saved by 235 

Fire, the, of Matt. 3: 11, 12, etc. 237 

Fire, the baptism of 238 

First day of the week, keeping 239 

First day, meeting on 241 

First day, must we keep all of the? 242 

First day, when does it begin? 243 

"First" and "last" 244 

"Flesh," in John 6: 53 244 

Flesh and blood, bread and wine 246 

"Fools," who therein "shall not err" 246 

Foot washing 247 

"Foreknew," whom God 252 

Foreknowledge and predestination, God's 253 

Foreknowledge and predestination, difference between 254 

Foreknow, did God, that he would punish certain men? 255 

Foreordination and predestination 257 

Forgiving a brother 260 

Forgiving without repentance 260 

Forgiveness, ground of 261 

Funds, raising, to support the gospel 261 

Funds, distributing 262 

Funeral preaching 262 

Funeral sermons 263 



INDEX. 761 

Future, does God know all the? 264 

Futures, can Christians deal in? 264 

Generation of vipers, did John baptize? 266 

Gentiles, how saved? 267 

Ghost, the Holy 267 

Ghost, the Holy, and fire baptism 268 

Ghost, the sin against the Holy 268 

Gift, the, given to Timothy 269 

Gifts, do miraculous, still exist? 273 

God, seeing, "face to face" 274 

Gold, wearing ! 275 

Gold, wearing, as an ornament 278 

"Gold, silver, precious stones," meaning of 279 

Gospels, do the, belong to the Old Testament? 280 

Grace, can one fall from? 280 

Grace and works 281 

Grievances, adjusting 282 

Guile, meaning of 283 

Guile, meaning of "caught you with" 284 

Hands, laying on 285 

Hands, gift in Timothy by laying on 287 

Hand, the offending 287 

Hating father, mother, etc. 288 

Healing, miraculous 289 

Healing, do gifts of, continue now? 290 

Heb. 6: 1-6, meaning of 291 

Hebrews, chapter ten 292 

Heartfelt religion 293 

Law, appealing to the civil 395 

Heathen, meaning of "as a heathen man and a publican" 300 

Heathen, whom to regard as a 302 

Heaven and hell, degrees in 303 

Heirs of the land of Canaan, how? 304 

Hell, gates of, prevail against what? 305 

Hell fire, meaning of 306 

Hell, is it a literal place? 308 

Hell, and how all things worked for good 308 

Heresy 310 

"Higher criticism," what is it? 315 

Hireling and wolves 316 

Holy Spirit, indwelling 316 

Holy Spirit, gift of 317 

Holy Spirit, sin against 319 

Honest, will God save the, whether they do just what he com- 
mands or not? 320 

House, the Lord's 323 

Husbands and wives separating 326 

Ignorance, does honest, save? 327 

Immersed in one day, could three thousand have been? 330 

Immortality of the soul, questions on 331 

Impractical questions 335 

Infant regeneration 335 

Iniquity, still in the bond of 336 

Innovations and the reformation 337 

Instruments in the home and in the school 339 

Instruments, teaching with 340 

Insurance, life 341 

Interest and usury 342 

Interest taken on loans 342 



762 INDEX. 

Isa. 28: 20 342 

Ishmael 343 

Israel, how all, saved? 344 

Jacob served Laban, how long? 345 

Jailer, was the, baptized in the jail? 345 

Jerusalem, destruction of, and the end of the world 346 

Jesus, the father of 347 

Jesus and the Father, how one? 347 

Jews, the 348 

"Jew," the, "Hebrew," and "Israel" 349 

Jews, God's dealing with, and Gentiles 350 

Jews, salvation of the, etc. ' 350 

Jewish worship, instruments in 351 

Job was afflicted, how long? 353 

John 1: 13 explained 354 

John 3: 5 355 

John 3: 8 356 

John First Epistle 1: 8 and 3: 9 reconciled 357 

Jonah, the preaching of, etc. 357 

Judas, the fate of 359 

Judas, was he the victim of prophecy? 359 

Judas, was he compelled to betray Christ? 361 

Judas, how the devil influenced 363 

Judas, was he at the Supper? 364 

Judge the world, Christ coming to ! 364 

Judging, the scriptures on 364 

King James translators, were they immersionsts? 365 

King, is Christ a, now? 367 

Kingdom of Christ, when and where set up, and its present ex- 
istence on earth 368 

Kingdom, when the, established 373 

Kingdom of God — shall we pray for it to come? 373 

Kingdom, the, and "foolish and divisive" discussion 375 

Kingdom, the, now exists 376 

Kingdom, what meant by? 376 

Kingdom of God and the thief 377 

Kingdom, the keys of the, etc. 379 

Kiss, the holy 380 

Kissing, the organ, etc. - 381 

Knowing man would sin, yet God made him — did not this make 

it impossible for man to avoid sin? 383 

Knowing the Lord in the new covenant 385 

Knowing in part and prophesying in part 385 

"Last days," the, and other things 386 

Law, Christ's, the old, etc. 387 

Law, Paul keeping the 389 

Law the alien is under, what? 390 

Law, was there forgiveness under the? 390 

Law, no — no transgression 391 

Law, what are "works" of? 394 

Law, appealing to the civil 395 

Lawsuits among brethren 396 

Lawful things and things expedient 397 

Lazarus, is the story of, and the rich man a parable? 398 

Letters, church 398 

Life, eating of the tree of 400 

Life-insurance policies 401 

Life eternal, do we have, now? 403 

Life, the, hid with Christ 404 



INDEX. 763 

Life, what the book of 404 

Light, the, which lighteth, etc. 405 

Liquor traffic, assisting in the , 406 

Lives, laying down our, for brethren 407 

Loaves, how many in the Supper? etc. 408 

Lord's day, the 410 

Lord's day, teaching children on 410 

Lord's Supper, query about taking 412 

Lord's Supper, may we eat where the organ is? 415 

Lord's Supper, carrying the, to- the sick 416 

Lord's table, or with whom "not to eat," etc. 416 

Lot's choice 417 

Lot, how was the, cast? 419 

"Louisville Plan," the 420 

"Lovest thou me more than these?" 421 

Lying, is all, deception? 421 

Majorities, deciding things by 422 

Malice against God 423 

Mammon of unrighteousness, the 424 

Mammon, making friends of 425 

Marriage and other things 425 

Marriage, divorce, etc. 427 

Marriage, are Jesus and Paul in harmony on? 430 

Married to Christ, are Christians already? 431 

Married, was Paul? 431 

Marrying, a Christian, one not a Christian 432 

Marrying relatives 434 

Marrying after separation 434 

Matt. 18: 18 explained 434 

Melchisedec 435 

Members of the church, how persons become 436 

Memorial, Mary's 438 

"Messengers," church "apostles," or 439 

Millennial reign, when the? 440 

Miscellaneous questions 441 

Money changers, what were they doing? 444 

"Moon," the, and "twelve stars" 444 

Mormon, Book of, and Isa. 29 444 

Mormons on Mark 16: 17, 18 445 

Moses, the law of 448 

Mothers, shall they teach in the home? 450 

Music, David, and instrumental 451 

Music, controversy over instrumental, in 1878 453 

Name, was the "new," "Baptist?" 458 

Nationalities, differences over religion 459 

Natural man, the 459 

"New and old" things 461 

Offending hand or foot, the 461 

"Office," meaning of the word in the New Testament 462 

Office of tax receiver, can a Christian fill the? 466 

Old Testament, teaching the 467 

Olives, his feet on the mount of 469 

"Ordained to eternal life," who? 470 

"Ordained," baptizing without being 471 

Order of the acts of worship • 471 

Ordinances, God's 472 

Ordination and baptizing 473 

Organ, my position on the 474 

Organ, will worshiping with the, cause one ij be lost? 475 



764 INDEX. 

Organ in worship, can differences ever be arbitrated? 476 

Organs, going to hell, etc. 477 

Organ, the, in the Sunday school 479 

Organ, can Christians worship with a church that uses the? 480 

Organs, may Christians buy? 482 

"Owe no man anything" 484 

Paradise, where? 484 

Paradise and the "third heaven" 485 

Paradise and the dying thief 486 

Pardon, the terms of, the same to all 487 

Passing the plate 488 

Passover, were the, and the Lord's Supper the same? 489 

Paul planting and Apollos watering 489 

Pharaoh, the name 490 

Pope, the first Catholic 490 

Popularity with the world 491 

Posture in prayer 492 

Powers, the, that be 493 

Prayer, the Bible on alien 494 

Prayer, leading in 495 

Prayer meeting, dispensing with, in hot weather 497 

Praying for temporal blessings 498 

Praying for his murderers, Jesus 499 

Preachers, called and sent 500 

Preaching Christ without baptism 500 

Preaching — did it cease when the New Testament was written ?__ 501 

Predestination, etc. 503 

Presbyterians, taking membership with 504 

Presbyterians, communing with 505 

Presumptuous sin 506 

Priest, when did Christ become a? t 507 

Priesthood of Melchisedec 507 

Priests and Levites, age of 508 

Prince of the power of the air, the 509 

Prince of this world, the 509 

"Principles" of Christ, what are the "first?" 510 

"Prison," the "spirits in," and the state between death and the 

resurrection 510 

"Prison," preaching to the "spirits in" 512 

"Promise to the fathers," the 513 

Prophecies of Matt. 24 .514 

Prophecy and our duties 516 

Prophecy, the millennium, etc. 516 

Prophesying in part, knowing in part, etc. 517 

Providence, special and general 518 

Public prayer 519 

Punishment, capital 521 

Punishment after death — will it end? 522 

Punishment, degrees in 523 

Questions, miscellaneous 525 

Questions unanswered in the Bible 526 

Rahab — was she a harlot? 526 

Rebaptism 527 

Rebaptism and other questions 528 

Rebaptized disciples, who baptized the? 531 

Rebaptized, why? 531 

Rebaptism of the twelve 532 

"Receive him not into your house," who? 532 

Recognition, future 533 



INDEX. 765 

Reconcile 2 Kings 2: 11 and John 3: 13 535 

Records, church, etc. 535 

"Regeneration," the word 538 

Repent, how did God? 538 

Repentance 539 

Repentance and restitution 539 

Repentance, fruits worthy of 540 

Resurrection, the, when? 541 

Resurrection body 542 

Revelation — part at a time 543 

Revelation, the book of, and speculations on 543 

Riches and salvation 544 

Righting wrongs, etc. . 547 

Rod, coming with a 548 

Romans, the, and the Jews 548 

Romans, seventh chapter 549 

Romans, ninth chapter 551 

Romans, eleventh chapter 553 

Sabbath, the question of 556 

Sabbath, must we keep the? 572 

Sabbath, was the, changed to the first day of the week? 577 

Sabbath, the "high," and what "third day?" 579 

Salary, stated, for preaching 581 

Salvation, "the common" 582 

Salvation came to Zaccheus, how 582 

S an ctifi cation 583 

"Sanctify," meaning of 587 

Satan tempts men, how? 589 

Scapegoat, the 590 

Second coming of Christ 590 

Sectarians taking part in the worship 591 

Sects, communing with the 592 

Shepherd, the true 593 

Sick, anointing the 594 

Signs to follow 595 

Sin, not pardonable 597 

Sin, difference between Peter's and Paul's 599 

Sin, can a child of God? 600 

Sin, willful 600 

Sin, "the man of," and other questions 603 

Sin, the, "unto death" 606 

Singing, queries on 608 

Sinless, do Christians become? 610 

Sinners, alien, and restitution, etc. 613 

Sinners, alien, and prayer 614 

Slaves and masters 614 

Sociables, parties, etc. 616 

Social meetings 617 

Societies, reply to J. W. Higbee on 618 

Solomon, was he a colored man? 621 

"Sons" of God and "daughters" of men 621 

Soul, what is the? 621 

Soul and spirit, distinction between 622 

Soul, where it goes at death 622 

Speculation, avoid 623 

Speculations, what are they worth? 623 

Speculating condemned 626 

Speculations on the second coming when they cause division 626 

Spirit, the Holy 627 



766 INDEX. 

Spirit, blasphemy against the Holy 638 

Spirit, the gift of the 639 

Spirit, who "the poor in" 641 

Spirit, praying for the Holy 641 

Spirit, baptism and gift of 642 

Spirit, birth of the 644 

Spirit, when is one born of? 646 

Spirit, the Holy, in Christians 1 647 

Spirit, water, and blood 648 

Spirit, witness of the 649 

Sprinkling in Ezek. 36: 25 650 

Sprinkling, is it ever called "baptism" in the Bible? 650 

"Star in the East," what was? 652 

Storms, does God send? 652 

Sunday school, the 654 

Sunday schools, authority for 655 

Sunday schools, literature in 657 

Sunday-school work, shall sinners lead in? 658 

Sunday-school superintendents 659 

Supper, the Lord's, and the passover 660 

Supper, who should eat the Lord's? 660 

Supper, when to eat the Lord's 661 

Supper, questions on the Lord's 663 

Supper, which is meant? 664 

Supper, eating the Lord's, twice on the Lord's day 665 

Supper, is there authority for the Lord's, on Saturday? 666 

Supper, did Jesus partake of the Lord's? 666 

Supper, intoxicating wine in the Lord's 667 

Swearing 668 

Tabernacle, what became of the? 670 

Talents, parable of the 671 

Tares, the 672 

Teaching in classes 674 

Teaching and the Supper, which first? 675 

Teaching the Bible, numerous questions on 676 

"Teaching in songs," how? i 679 

Tempting Christ 680 

Temptation, meaning of "lead us not into" 680 

"Tenth," one, to the Lord 681 

Thanks before eating 683 

Theaters, going to 683 

Thief on the cross and paradise, the 686 

Thief's language a question, is the? 687 

"Third heaven," purpose of Paul's vision in 688 

"Thorn in the flesh," Paul's 688 

Time referred to in Heb. 8: 10, 11 and 1 Cor. 2: 9 688 

Time of the sojourn in Egypt 689 

"Times of refreshing" 690 

Timothy, Paul circumcising 690 

Timothy, Paul circumcising, and refusing to circumcise Titus 691 

Timothy, was he a bishop? 692 

Tim., 1, 5: 24, 25 693 

Tobacco 693 

Tomb, how long was Jesus in the? 694 

"Tongues for a sign," etc. 696 

"The elect lady," who is? 696 

Translation of Acts 2: 38 697 

"Troubled waters," healing by the 698 

Unbaptized, shall the, lead in prayer? 698 



INDEX. 767 

Unbeliever, who the, in 1 Cor. 7: 12-14 699 

Union meetings 700 

Unpardonable sin, can the, be committed now? 702 

Unregenerate, can the, believe? __• 702 

Untaught questions 704 

Usury y^ 706 

Veiling their faces, women _ 706 

Voice, the, heard by Saul 707 

Voting C 707 

Voting in the church s . 708 

Voting men out of the church, etd' 710 

"Water and blood," how Christ "came by" 713 

Water, the clean, of Ezek. 36: 25 715 

Wheat and tares, the 718 

"Whirlwind," Jehovah in the 718 

"Wind" in John 3: 8 /_ 719 

Wine, what kind in the supper * 720 

Wine, blackberry, in the Supper 721 

Wine, Timothy, elders, and 721 

Wine, old and new bottles, etc. 722 

Wise men, the, and the shepherds 723 

Witches and familiar spirits, are there, now? 724 

Withdraw from a brother, how to 725 

Withdrawing from a brother, meaning of 725 

Witnesses, the two 726 

Woman, how "the weaker vessel" 727 

Woman, the, of Rev. 12 728 

Women speaking in the church 729 

Women speaking in schools 729 

Women praying in public 730 

Women conducting worship 733 

Women teaching men 733 

Women preaching 734 

Women asking questions 735 

Women administering the Lord's Supper 736 

Women teaching in the Sunday school 736 

Women laboring in the gospel 737 

Women, as well as men, must contribute 737 

Women, what "those" did in Phil. 4: 3 738 

Women and expedients 738 

Women, "platted hair," "gold," etc. 741 

Word, how the, a "discerner of thoughts" 742 

Words, what are "idle?" 743 

Working and eating . 744 

Works, "the first" 744 

World, was the, created out of nothing? 746 

World, how long the, created before man 747 

World, what, in Matt. 28: 20 747 

World, how the, peopled after Cain 747 

World, dealing in institutions of the 748 

Worm, the, that "dies not" 749 

"Worship" and "service" 749 

Worship, "family" 751 

Worship, calling on Baptists and Methodists to take part in 751 

Worshiping together, white and colored 752 

Worshiping with those in whom we have no confidence 753 

Wrath, how by nature children of 753 

"Yoked unequally" 754 

Zechariah, a passage of, attributed to Jeremiah 755 



